Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 A new accreditation agency is seeking approval from the national DOE. this new board will immediately begin to approve OMD programs without debate or surveys. they have formed to oppose the metaphysical orientation of the current profession, as they see it. they used the same language Deke Kendall uses in his attacks on soulie de morant as the worst thing that ever happened to our field. read April acu today for more details. BTW, lest anyone read between my lines (as usual), there is no opinion expressed either way in this post. I have not had time to ruminate on this yet. However I do not generally support the activities of CCAOM and NCCAOM and the Alliance (the main currents orgs of our field). This new org seems more in line with the AAOM. any thoughts. -- Chinese Herbs voice: (619) 668-6964 fax: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 , wrote: > A new accreditation agency is seeking approval from the national DOE. this new board will immediately begin to approve OMD programs without debate or surveys. they have formed to oppose the metaphysical orientation of the current profession, as they see it. they used the same language Deke Kendall uses in his attacks on soulie de morant as the worst thing that ever happened to our field. >>> Excerpted from Ted Priebe's interview in Acupuncture Today: " The authentic theories and practices of Chinese medicine are consistent with the present understanding of human physiology. . . . Oriental medicine meets fundamental, scientific requirements for medicine in that it is evidence-based; is explainable via physiological mechanisms; and has a clinical practice consistent with its historic, theoretical, physiological, and experimental foundations. " Everything else is " inauthentic " ? Do they require or recommend learning Chinese? I would guess not. It would be interesting to see their exam---does anyone have a copy of their questions? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 , " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote: > > > Everything else is " inauthentic " ? Do they require or recommend > learning Chinese? I would guess not. > I wonder what Prof. Unschuld would have to say about their claims to authenticity.... rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 , " kampo36 " wrote: > I wonder what Prof. Unschuld would have to say about their claims to authenticity....>>> rh: If they are saying that CM is a prototype of WM, or should be looked at in only a scientific manner (the rest being superstition and metaphysics), then, I guess, Unschuld would be wrong. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 , " kampo36 " <kampo36> wrote: > , " James Ramholz " > <jramholz> wrote: > > > > > Everything else is " inauthentic " ? Do they require or recommend > > learning Chinese? I would guess not. > > > > I wonder what Prof. Unschuld would have to say about their claims to > authenticity.... > > rh I would also, since Deke Kendall frequently cited Unschuld as supporting his point of view in his lecture at PCOM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 , " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote: > rh: > > If they are saying that CM is a prototype of WM, or should be looked > at in only a scientific manner (the rest being superstition and > metaphysics), then, I guess, Unschuld would be wrong. > that position would seem to fly in the face of the idea of chinese thought being so different as discussed last week. However, my perception was that rather than suggesting that TCM be dispensed with, Priebe proposed the idea that TCM makes physiological sense and thus can be understood and explained from, not reduced to, that paradigm. A rejection of Metaphysics is not a rejection of CM. I think most of mainstream CM through all of chinese history explicitly rejects metaphysics. You can also understand TCM as holistic description of physiology. It still has value in its own right, but it does not explain some universe that westeners do not know. It probably requires learning to think like a chinese, but IMO, it just describes the same stuff a different way. Perhaps it will take chaos theory to explain how acupuncture works, but I will be really surprised if qi is ever recognized as a fundamental force like gravity. I don't believe in energy models of TCM, either (which leaves me struggling with how homeopathy works, buts that's another issue). My assumption would also be that Priebe would actually support students familiarizing themselves with basic medical chinese because it is in the study of chinese that one discovers the truth of this matter, according to Deke Kendall, of whose position I heard significant echo in Priebe's words. I think it would be best to get Priebe's actual thoughts about this and put the matter to rest. I cannot locate his contact info. Any help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2003 Report Share Posted March 25, 2003 > Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:08:43 -0800 > < > new accreditors > > A new accreditation agency is seeking approval from the national DOE. > this new board will immediately begin to approve OMD programs without > debate or surveys. they have formed to oppose the metaphysical > orientation of the current profession, as they see it. they used the > same language Deke Kendall uses in his attacks on soulie de morant as > the worst thing that ever happened to our field. read April acu today > for more details. > > BTW, lest anyone read between my lines (as usual), there is no opinion > expressed either way in this post. I have not had time to ruminate on > this yet. However I do not generally support the activities of CCAOM > and NCCAOM and the Alliance (the main currents orgs of our field). This > new org seems more in line with the AAOM. > > any thoughts. What is the name of this new agency? is there a website or other contact where one might get more information? -judy saxe Denver 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.