modalities

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

The points you have stated make sense to me and are consistent with my personal

experience. At the same time I also agree with Todd that an eclectic

practitioner can also get good results. Which type of approach is more

effective may depend more on the personality of the practitioner than anything

else.

 

Some thoughts and reflections on my own experience as a practitioner of 14+

years. I share the following ONLY as food for thought, NOT at all to suggest

" THE RIGHT WAY " :

 

1- My original training in TCM in the mid 80's was at best mediocre, though I

did not realize this fact for several years.

 

2- Despite that weak training, I did " receive " the most important inspiration of

my career from Dr. Su Liang Ku at that time. On the first day of class he gave

us a vision for our professional futures. He started by stating his vision for

his students to some day become doctors of TCM, but that this training here

would only be the beginning of that journey. What I heard him say was that he

takes TCM very seriously and that we must go much much deeper in our education

to really learn TCM and to become really effective practitioners.

 

3- Until just a few years ago when I " completed " my formal Chinese herbal

medicine training I experimented with and often used various modalities to help

me get better clinical results. I did have success with that approach. At the

same time I also realized that some of that success was short term and did not

usually get at the roots of the patients' chronic suffering.

 

4- Despite creating a busy practice, supporting a family and helping put 2 kids

through college, I was not really happy with just that kind of " success " . I

still remained fueled by Dr Ku's vision. Not the title, but the pursuit of a

much deeper knowledge and understanding of CM that his vision implied to me.

 

5- I returned to the idea that to become a much better practitioner I

needed/wanted to develop my competency with CM to a much deeper level. Aside

from deciding to make CM my primary focus of study I gradually began to move

away from my use of non CM modalities.

 

6- In retrospect now, I can say that with more extensive studies of Chinese

herbal medicine and CM in general my diagnostics and Tx's have improved

substantially. I am finding alot more satisfaction in what appears to be

helping patients more deeply and more long term. Most of my cases seem to be

stubborn chronic conditions having a Hx of 5 years or longer, not many are self

limiting.

 

7- Again, these are simply reflections from my own experience. These comments

are in no way intended to suggest that this is the best way. Perhaps the best

approach is the one that produces the best practitioner and maybe that is an

individual quest.

 

All that being said, I do think that many poorly trained acupuncturists, like

myself originally, have a tendency to grasp for non CM modalities(weekend

training type stuff) to get quicker results and more $ success. These non CM

modalities are not bad, but for me and perhaps others they become a distraction

from learning " real CM " . When I now use these techniques occasionally, I use

them in the context of a CM framework rather than just the framework of the

technique.

 

 

Mark

 

Thu, 26 Dec 2002 20:13:23 -0000

" Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001

Re: modalities

 

In fact, Bob Flaws said > otherwise and tried to make the case that we

have an obligation to the > tradition to be pure, not because it is

more effective, but to preserve it.

 

 

 

Please be careful not to conflate various of my remarks.

 

1) For the record, I believe I get MUCH better clinical results since

I've devoted myself solely to Chinese herbal medicine (which, for me,

does include Chinese dietary therapy), including better results with

intestinal dysbiosis. It is my experience that going deeply into a

single art is what leads to true mastery. I agree with you that such

specialization could and perhaps even should include specialization in

Chinese medicinals at the expense of acupuncture and/or tuina and

vice versa.

 

2) I believe that I do have an obligation to the art as well as to my

patients, although I am not sure that I necessarily feel that ALL

practitioners have such an obligation. I think that's a subject open

to debate.

 

3) I do believe that one can be a good eclectic clinician. However,

that being said, it is my experience that eclecticism more commonly

leads to superficiality than great clinical effectiveness. I have yet

to meet anyone I would call a great doctor who is an eclectic.

However, I have met a number of people I would say are great doctors

who have specialized just in Chinese herbal medicine.

 

Bob

 

 

 

______

[Guest guest]

, Mark Fradkin <mfrad@b...>

wrote:

I experimented with and often used various modalities to help me get better

clinical results. I did have success with that approach. At the same time I

also

realized that some of that success was short term and did not usually get at

the roots of the patients' chronic suffering.

>

> All that being said, I do think that many poorly trained acupuncturists, like

myself originally, have a tendency to grasp for non CM modalities(weekend

training type stuff) to get quicker results and more $ success.

 

Mark

 

I think the difference between what you are saying, what many acus do, what

Bob is talking about AND what I am talking about has to do with training. I

would never propose that people spread themselves too thin. Practicing a

dozen modalities like some holistic docs is clearly a recipe to become a jack

of all trades, master of none. I also oppose the untrained use of supplements.

the main flaw in what both you and Bob are saying is that you are comparing

people with the equivalent of healthfood store training in supplements to

those who have been trained thoroughly in the field (ND's). to say you had

poor results doing something you never received clinical training in has no

bearing on either my argument or experience. conversely, it is no surprise

that your results improved when you decided to study something deeply.

 

though I study world materia medica, I do not consider that separate from

TCM. what is separate from TCM is my study of modern nutritional therapies.

I do not do homeopathy and I do not do anything that does not have research

behind it. You won't find me crystal waving as part of my eclecticism. But I

received over 2000 hours of naturopathic education in a college, plus I

basically did a seven year apprenticeship with various senior ND's who

worked in my office. I always consulted them about my cases from an ND

perspective, same as one would consult a clinical supervisor in the intern

clinic. I believe I actually had more clinical training in naturopathy than I

did in

acupuncture.

 

I can't help but think that most people's experience with eclectic medicine is

quite skewed. Bob says he has never met a great eclectic doctor. Well,

perhaps when one lives in a state that does not license or train ND's in a four

year program, your exposure is limited. Full fledged ND's are only licensed in

13 states, notably absent are california, colorado and NY. and probably 80%

of such ND's practice in WA and OR. that is where the schools are and the

laws are good. Ontheother hand, most ND's in the country are mail order

ND's. they did not go to med school. it is unfair to compare their results

with

an L.Ac. Most medical doctors who get involved with holistic med are also

poorly trained (as we all know with regard to acupuncture). This is the other

large group many of you might interact with. It is also unfair to compare them

with acus. However, if you have ever had the experience of working in an

environment that is totally geared towards rigorous training in eclectic

medicine, you will see something else.

 

I know many great ND's. However, while they are eclectically trained, the best

ones are still somewhat narrow. I don't know any ND's who are good at all

modalities, but I know quite a few who are highly competent at a few (say

nutrition, homeopathy, manipulation). Now we are clearly at a hesaid,he said

impasse. But with all due respect to Bob, I have met more great ND's than I

have met great TCM docs. I have also met moe crappy ND's than I have met

crappy TCM docs. So I have no dispute with the argument that those who are

poorly trained in everything suck at what they do. But neither of you nor

anyone else on this list has made the slightest convincing case that mastery

of a single modality yields better results than high competency in a few. It is

all anecdote and opinion, including my own. In the absence of any FACTS, I

have no choice but to rely on my experience, which sharply contradicts your

own.

 

I will also offer that learning how to practice an effective, rational eclectic

medicine is at least as much an intellectual undertaking as mastering TCM in

regard to the time and effort consumed. It remains to be seen which, if either,

is actually superior in practice. Is a person who masters a single musical

instrument always a superior performer overall compared to one who plays a

few quite well? Obviously it can go either way. I also need to advise a few

words of caution to members based upon feedback on this thread. this is not

merely an abstract academic discussion here. members earn their livelihood

from their practices. they are trained according to accepted national

standards and pass licensing exams. We need to tread a careful line when

making broad public statements about the competency of our peers.

 

[Guest guest]

Bob says he has never met a great eclectic doctor

>>I know quite a few MDs that I would go to for eclectic (alternative) med before I would to Bob

Alon

[Guest guest]

From : Todd

 

> the main flaw in what both you and Bob are saying is that you are

to say you had

> poor results doing something you never received clinical training in

has no

> bearing on either my argument or experience.

 

 

I was referring to basic training in acupuncture school as being

inadequate for some people, such as myself.

 

 

 

>But I

> received over 2000 hours of naturopathic education in a college,

plus I

> basically did a seven year apprenticeship with various senior ND's

who

> worked in my office. I always consulted them about my cases from

an ND

> perspective, same as one would consult a clinical supervisor in the

intern

> clinic. I believe I actually had more clinical training in

naturopathy than I did in

> acupuncture.

 

 

I am sure that the way you practice is excellent. I see nothing

wrong with your approach using eclectic medicine!!

 

 

 

> However, if you have ever had the experience of working in an

> environment that is totally geared towards rigorous training in

eclectic

> medicine, you will see something else.

 

 

I don't doubt that at all.

 

 

> But neither of you nor

> anyone else on this list has made the slightest convincing case that

mastery

> of a single modality yields better results than high competency in a

few. It is

> all anecdote and opinion, including my own. In the absence of any

FACTS, I

> have no choice but to rely on my experience, which sharply

contradicts your

> own.

 

 

I simply offered reflections from my own experience as food for

thought not as a quest to convince you of anything.

 

 

 

>I also need to advise a few

> words of caution to members based upon feedback on this thread.

this is not

> merely an abstract academic discussion here. members earn their

livelihood

> from their practices. they are trained according to accepted

national

> standards and pass licensing exams. We need to tread a careful line

when

> making broad public statements about the competency of our peers.

 

 

 

Again, I agree with you and see that the language I used

regarding our peers was too strong. I appreciate the feedback.

 

Mark