integration run amok

[Guest guest]

In acupuncture today, Neil Demarse, L.Ac. writes,

 

" Forget Chinese medicine: the evolution of the " science of acupuncture "

has inevitably begun, and modern medicine and scientific experimentation

are the future of this science. Integration needs to take place for

acupuncture to survive as a system of care outside the private practice or

no-fault clinic.

 

To have a truly synergistic means of treatment, all ideas must be bound

cohesively into a greater body of knowledge. Realistically, this will take

place in the form of a combination of TCM theories and Western medical

theories.

 

Chinese herbs also need experimentation, but in the U.S., their future

will be headed toward the pharmaceutical industry. Herbs known to have

effects on certain disease states will be able to be synthesized in a lab

like any other medication. In this way, compliance and regulation will

increase. "

replies: As everyone knows, I am a proponent of conscious

integration to the extent it is possible. However, I do not believe there

is a grand unifying theory of medicine. I believe medicine is plural as

has been demonstrated by numerous anthropologists, including volker Scheid.

I don't think practitioners benefit from too much personal plurality,

but clearly that is the nature of the medicine as a whole and also applies

to western med. There does not seem to have been any force in history that

can change this and if Scheid is right, there never will be as long as

human culture itself remains plural. The fact is that evolution of all

systems depends on plural inputs. Unexpressed potentialities do not

necessarily disappear from the gene pool; they just lay hidden until they

are called upon by the forces of nature.

 

In the future we will see an integrative med based mainly on science and

another based mainly on TCM. We will also see herbs made into drugs.

However we will also continue to see low tech versions of TCM continue in

the future. It is a long time coming before we could approach the

complexity of herbs in drug form. I note that other modern societies that

already place high value of TCM (such as PRC and Japan) do not model their

practices on some integrated medical theory in order to gain acceptance.

The TCM concepts exist side by side with western ones. they are not

really truly intermingled or integrated into one system.

 

While I strongly support the author's goal of integration, I believe he is

misguided in the ends he seeks. If this mission to integrate and gain

mainstream acceptance sinks or swims based upon whether TCM can be fully

adapted into a " synergistic " model, then I fear it will sink. Or the TCM

that is left will be a much lesser force in the final paring. We do not

even fully understand TCM in its own right,yet. It is a little premature

to integrate something we only know a little about. Task 1 is not

integration. Task 1 is laying rock solid TCM foundations (coincidentally

the theme of the upcoming CHA conference - Creating Firm Foundations for a

Flexible Future). This is the type of integration that ruffles Z'ev's

feathers and why he considers it a precarious path. I can't disagree.

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

, wrote:

If this mission to integrate and gain mainstream acceptance sinks or

swims based upon whether TCM can be fully adapted into

a " synergistic " model, then I fear it will sink. Or the TCM

that is left will be a much lesser force in the final paring. We do

not even fully understand TCM in its own right,yet. It is a little

premature to integrate something we only know a little about. Task

1 is not integration.

 

Task 1 is laying rock solid TCM foundations (coincidentally

the theme of the upcoming CHA conference - Creating Firm Foundations

for a Flexible Future). This is the type of integration that ruffles

Z'ev's feathers and why he considers it a precarious path. I can't

disagree.>>>

 

:

 

Integration is not clearly defined. Who is integrating what?

 

Integration in the sense that real acupuncturists and herbalists are

equally paid from insurance and medicare or can follow their

patients into a hospital and treat them is not happening outside of

Medical acupuncture. In a number of states, a medical doctor must

supervise or be involved with the case; and herbs are not in the

scope of their practice.

 

Integration in the sense that Western MDs are using the techniques

and including herbs from CM in their practice has already happened;

it's not a future worry. The scientific rationale of CM methods

simply supports that developement by Medical acupuncturists. The

cultural authority for CM has been taken away from the

traditionalists---it seems even in China.

 

" Laying a solid TCM foundation " does not effect this ongoing

integration. Western MDs don't answer to our credentialing or

certifying processes, and they don't have to understand CM outside

of its scientific framework.

 

Again, who is integrating what?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz>

wrote:

 

>

> " Laying a solid TCM foundation " does not effect this ongoing

> integration.

 

I agree, but I think the only way that integration will not rend the fabric of

CM

is if we understand it more fully. If we do not consciously engage this process

in this way, we will be left out of the process altogether and the integration

willbe fully westernized. If we can't support our position with evidence and

strong argument, how much of us will be left in the final integration.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> I agree, but I think the only way that integration will not rend

the fabric of CM is if we understand it more fully. If we do not

consciously engage this process in this way, we will be left out of

the process altogether and the integration will be fully

westernized. If we can't support our position with evidence and

strong argument, how much of us will be left in the final

integration. >>>

 

:

 

I think we are already left out of the process of integration---

unless more goes on at the national level. If the state laws and

social institutions don't treat us the same way as an MD who does

acupuncture, then we are not equally integrated in the culture.

While I enjoy integrating WM into CM theories and think it valuable,

the cultural authority of scientific reasoning prevails. Recasting

CM theories into " real " scientific terms is where the culture is

going.

 

But I believe that in an important sense you are correct. The only

way to improve our position is to continue to demonstate that our

product and our skills are equal or superior to Medical acupuncture.

Isn't that the reason they took it up in the first place?

 

The marketplace may, finally, help determine who integrates what. We

may not be GM or Ford, but we don't have to be Yugo.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

> Sat, 24 May 2003 17:37:39 -0000

> " James Ramholz " <jramholz

> Re: integration run amok

 

>I think we are already left out of the process of

integration---

 

I think you're right.

 

What we mean when we use the term " integration " and what

other medical professions mean are two different things.

While we see integration as a collaborative effort, joining

TCM practice with WM diagnostics and strategies; MDs tend to

see integration as something much less medical.

 

When an MD speaks of " Integrative Medicine " these days,

she's really talking about modalities like Healing Touch,

Massage, Yoga, Watsu, etc. Centers for so-called

" integrative medicine, " like the one at Scripps in La Jolla,

are not actually using any medicine other than WM. The

Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine does offer

acupuncture for its patients, but only administered by an MD

and only to relieve pain. No TCM diagnosis or evaluation is

involved, treatments last 15 minutes and are billed at $150

as session. The Center also has an " Herbal Pharmacy " which

only consists of high quality vitamins and products like

echinacea and garlic supplements. I attended one of their

classes on how to use herbal medicine given to the public.

The class stressed the importance of getting an MD's

supervision when taking any herb or vitamin products and

never mentioned Chinese medicine or the fact that a

profession like ours exists in which people are

professionally trained to know more about herbal prescribing

than an MD. I was sitting in a class at the Scripps Center

for Integrative Medicine and hearing quite clearly that we

do not exist.

 

To some degree, the omission is understandable (though not

acceptable). What surprises me even more is that we are not

only invisible to MDs, but we are being snubbed by the big

CAM movement as well. I've d to " Alternative

Therapies in Health and Medicine: A Peer-Reviewed Journal "

for nearly three years now. It's an excellent publication

highlighting all of the exciting new research and new doors

opening for complementary medicine. I am consistently

amazed, however, by how little coverage they provide for

TCM. In my naiveté, I expected our profession to be the

king of CAM modalities, dominating the news and features.

It rarely makes an appearance. There was one very good

article last Fall - it focused on the difficulties

associated with designing protocols for TCM research. Todd

posted the article on the CHA and we were all very excited

about it. Other than that, there has been hardly a whisper

in print. Qi Gong is more likely to be featured, sometimes

acupuncture for musculoskeletal conditions, never TCM herbal

medicine.

 

The May/June issue of Alternative Therapies arrived in my

mailbox last week. I was thrilled to see a feature titled:

" Herbs and other Dietary Supplements: Healthcare

Professionals' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices. " The

article was sadly disappointing, though, once I realized it

completely ignored the existence of TCM. The authors had

received a grant to survey WM professionals and determine

their knowledge about things like garlic and echinacea and

how they interacted with their patients regarding such

options. It had nothing to do with sophisticated herbal

prescribing and it didn't even think to mention that such a

thing exists.

 

I once asked the cardiologist who founded the Scripps Center

for Integrative Medicine why she thought modalities like

Healing Touch were more widely accepted than TCM among WM

professionals. Her answer was: " because they know it

doesn't do anything. " Her personal beliefs are that energy

medicine DOES do something, but she has banked on her

colleagues' belief that it's useless fluff to sneak it into

her Integrative Medicine program. TCM, on the other hand,

clearly does something and is therefore seen as a threat to

WM providers' autonomy. We cannot underestimate what our

status as a threat does to the mentality with which we hope

to " integrate. " We are not only a threat to MDs; we are

also a threat to the CAM community which every day moves

deeper into WM's good graces.

 

TCM is not a CAM modality and it is not WM. It is a

parallel medicine as legitimate, professional and unique as,

say, Dentistry. If we are going to flourish, we have to

assert ourselves as experts in a necessary, parallel field

of medicine. We have to convince the greater population

that, if they want to know about herbs, we are the ones to

ask - the same way you go to a dentist if you want to know

about your teeth. A patient mentions to his cardiologist

that he has a raging toothache; she refers him to a

dentist. A patient mentions to his cardiologist that he has

a whole cluster of GI symptoms that sound like IBS; she

refers him to us.

 

Ever optimistic,

Laurie Burton

[Guest guest]

To some degree, the omission is understandable (though notacceptable). What surprises me even more is that we are notonly invisible to MDs, but we are being snubbed by the bigCAM movement as well.

>>>These are way over simplified. Kaiser for example is integrating LAc in their system and see them as the primary force in "integrated"medicine. Many MDs see integrated medicine as simply using other modalities such as chiropractors or even osteopaths that use manual therapy into patient care. There is usually no underlying philosophy or understanding of these systems. It is true however that MDs would like to be able to control the entire system. I think that is why we need an entry level, community acceptable (that is western schools standards), doctoral program. We need the doctoral programs to be regionally accredited otherwise they are worthless papers

[Guest guest]

Laurie,

 

I so enjoyed your post that I wanted to commend your beautiful articulation of the prime directive. CM is its own complete system and not at all subject to the rules and vicissitudes of other paradigms. I particularly like your comments regarding LAc.s asserting themselves as representatives to America of a new/ancient, different yet parallel paradigm to WM. I believe LAc.s may need to stay completely parallel and even build your own highways. For awhile you may have to drive truck Route 20 across the nation instead of Interstate 80. The beauty, of course, is that you'll get to see a lot more ... of the country and your patients. The highways you are building are already far preferable to so many.

 

I took the liberty of adding a golden oldie at the bottom of your comments from my saved files. It's for those new to the list that haven't had the pleasure of Robert Hayden's self-decribed rant regarding "biomedical jrs." He was set free by the ever provocative yet charming Gabrielle. I personally felt Robert stated his case too conservatively, but he ended it well. Robert ends it with a Mevlevi saying by Rumi. I like the alternative translation that also notes that "this is not a caravan of despair ... come, come, come again." It reminded me of my real "vested interests" which I now include with my signature per Todd's request. In order to teach at a California public college I had to take a vow as an "officer of the state" to "protect the state of California from it's enemies." Thus, it's my mission on this list to protect every one from enemies of the state ... the state of their minds.

 

At your service,

Emmanuel Segmen

Merritt College; Asia Natural; Cherag in The Sufi Order of the West; and, of course,

Intergalactic Poetry and Cultural Philosophy Consortium,

Captain of the Guard

TCM is not a CAM modality and it is not WM. It is aparallel medicine as legitimate, professional and unique as,say, Dentistry. If we are going to flourish, we have to assert ourselves as experts in a necessary, parallel field of medicine. We have to convince the greater population that, if they want to know about herbs, we are the ones to ask - the same way you go to a dentist if you want to know about your teeth. A patient mentions to his cardiologist that he has a raging toothache; she refers him to a dentist. A patient mentions to his cardiologist that he has a whole cluster of GI symptoms that sound like IBS; she refers him to us.Ever optimistic,Laurie Burton

 

, "gabriellemathieu" <gabriellemathieu> wrote:> I can't find the post right now, but I remember reading something earlier today that awke my interest. It was about the allied health professionals coming to TCM school, and the biomedical Jr.s'> I don't think anyone here would argue your points, least of all me. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the biomedical profession -- many living members of my immediate family (most recently my infant son) would be very dead right now if it weren't for heroic intervention on the part of biomedicine. I actually enjoy having students from allied health professions for the same reason I alluded to in my last post, it forces me to stretch beyond my boundaries and confront my own laziness, shore up my weak points etc. I don't think anyone here condones intellectual laziness. My point was not about "biomedical Jr.s" i.e. individuals at all, it was about the transformation of OM to a sort of shadow biomedicine, trying to recreate what biomedicine already does so well only with herbs and acupuncture. The chiros have tried a similar strategy and gotten nothing but scorn from biomedicine. Do we want to do the same?My points were for inclusion of *everyone* who is interested, sincere, open, and hardworking in order to retain some sense of balance and doing what IMHO OM is actually good at -- nurturing life, keeping people healthy as opposed to crisis intervention. My point was that we need to be very careful before we start constructing barriers based on ridiculous stereotypical criteria ("new-age" what does that mean? Is a Tibetan Buddhist "new-age", how about shamans? Do we search your backpack for evidence of tarot cards and sage before you walk in school, have "crystal detectors" set up in the entrance?). How many of us here would have been turned away from the profession if the prereqs included the same classes as med students? Do we think valuable contributions have been made to OM by people with no scientific background?

No question med/science background is useful, perhaps even crucial, to continued success and development in the field. But we need to be careful about marginalizing people with liberal arts or humanities backgrounds as being irrelevant to the field as well, using dismissive attitudes and language that stanch dialogue. Everyone agrees that biomedicine is a necessary and marvelous thing --but most everyone agrees that there is something missing in it... it has been carried away by its own technology and in many ways blinded by its own stunning success. If we just attempt to recreate this with our medieval agrarian methods, we will always fall short and may in fact make ourselves irrelevant in the long run.One more thing before I end my rant for the morning: those who say the metaphysical has NEVER been part of "mainstream Chinese internal medicine" please explain the Shennong Bencao Jing -- was this not for centuries the standard "mainstream" materia medica? If so, then do you rationalize away all the ghost references as psychiatric phenomena, the flying references as hypnotic states? If so, aren't you reconstructing CM history to fit your own perceptions and biases?robert hayden"Come, come again, whoever you are, come!Heathen, fire worshipper or idolatrous, come!Come even if you broke your penitence a hundred times,Ours is the portal of hope, come as you are."-Rumi

[Guest guest]

Laurie,

I enjoyed your post, as 'integration' seems to be a hot topic these

days... I'm very interested to know why there are few articles regarding

TCM in the journal you mention. I think of two things - 1. Articles are

not accepted from the TCM community, or 2. People in the TCM community

are not writing articles (I assume this is more likely the case). You

said our list moderator extraordinaire, Todd had an article published in

the journal. Todd - did you have any trouble having your work

published? I've seen some good articles published in Acupuncture Today,

I would assume that some of the regular TCM contributors (hi Brian)

would have articles that would be publishable in journals such as the

Alternative Therapies journal you mentioned.

 

I called David Matteson today to find out some more information about a

lecture he did in my public health class a few years ago, and he told me

about a journal he is writing for, Integrative Medicine: A Clinician's

journal. Joseph Pizzorno, ND is the editor-in-chief for the journal and

I read last year that he is sitting in on the white house committee to

determine the future role of CAM in Medicare. Their website is

www.imjournal.com I don't see one L.Ac. on the editor list, only an RN,

DC, ND, and MD. I certainly haven't felt any 'bad vibes' coming from

anyone that I've talked to about TCM and Integrated Medicine, but the

journals are definitely lacking of TCM contributions.

 

That all said, I have seen the moves from the ND lobby here in

Washington state to try to incorporate acupuncture under their scope of

practice. It has failed the last few times it came up, due to heavy

lobbying efforts on behalf of the Acupuncture Association of Washington,

but it seems to loom closer and closer each time. It almost seems like

some of the ND's want to get all CAM therapies under their umbrella.

This is why our special interest groups and lobbyists are so important.

It reminds me of the saying about how everyone hates lawyers until you

need one.

 

Geoff

 

 

, Laurie + Tony <tgperez@e...>

wrote:

>

> > Sat, 24 May 2003 17:37:39 -0000

> > " James Ramholz " <jramholz>

> > Re: integration run amok

>

> >I think we are already left out of the process of

> integration---

>

> I think you're right.

>

> What we mean when we use the term " integration " and what

> other medical professions mean are two different things.

> While we see integration as a collaborative effort, joining

> TCM practice with WM diagnostics and strategies; MDs tend to

> see integration as something much less medical.

>

> When an MD speaks of " Integrative Medicine " these days,

> she's really talking about modalities like Healing Touch,

> Massage, Yoga, Watsu, etc. Centers for so-called

> " integrative medicine, " like the one at Scripps in La Jolla,

> are not actually using any medicine other than WM. The

> Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine does offer

> acupuncture for its patients, but only administered by an MD

> and only to relieve pain. No TCM diagnosis or evaluation is

> involved, treatments last 15 minutes and are billed at $150

> as session. The Center also has an " Herbal Pharmacy " which

> only consists of high quality vitamins and products like

> echinacea and garlic supplements. I attended one of their

> classes on how to use herbal medicine given to the public.

> The class stressed the importance of getting an MD's

> supervision when taking any herb or vitamin products and

> never mentioned Chinese medicine or the fact that a

> profession like ours exists in which people are

> professionally trained to know more about herbal prescribing

> than an MD. I was sitting in a class at the Scripps Center

> for Integrative Medicine and hearing quite clearly that we

> do not exist.

>

> To some degree, the omission is understandable (though not

> acceptable). What surprises me even more is that we are not

> only invisible to MDs, but we are being snubbed by the big

> CAM movement as well. I've d to " Alternative

> Therapies in Health and Medicine: A Peer-Reviewed Journal "

> for nearly three years now. It's an excellent publication

> highlighting all of the exciting new research and new doors

> opening for complementary medicine. I am consistently

> amazed, however, by how little coverage they provide for

> TCM. In my naiveté, I expected our profession to be the

> king of CAM modalities, dominating the news and features.

> It rarely makes an appearance. There was one very good

> article last Fall - it focused on the difficulties

> associated with designing protocols for TCM research. Todd

> posted the article on the CHA and we were all very excited

> about it. Other than that, there has been hardly a whisper

> in print. Qi Gong is more likely to be featured, sometimes

> acupuncture for musculoskeletal conditions, never TCM herbal

> medicine.

>

> The May/June issue of Alternative Therapies arrived in my

> mailbox last week. I was thrilled to see a feature titled:

> " Herbs and other Dietary Supplements: Healthcare

> Professionals' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices. " The

> article was sadly disappointing, though, once I realized it

> completely ignored the existence of TCM. The authors had

> received a grant to survey WM professionals and determine

> their knowledge about things like garlic and echinacea and

> how they interacted with their patients regarding such

> options. It had nothing to do with sophisticated herbal

> prescribing and it didn't even think to mention that such a

> thing exists.

>

> I once asked the cardiologist who founded the Scripps Center

> for Integrative Medicine why she thought modalities like

> Healing Touch were more widely accepted than TCM among WM

> professionals. Her answer was: " because they know it

> doesn't do anything. " Her personal beliefs are that energy

> medicine DOES do something, but she has banked on her

> colleagues' belief that it's useless fluff to sneak it into

> her Integrative Medicine program. TCM, on the other hand,

> clearly does something and is therefore seen as a threat to

> WM providers' autonomy. We cannot underestimate what our

> status as a threat does to the mentality with which we hope

> to " integrate. " We are not only a threat to MDs; we are

> also a threat to the CAM community which every day moves

> deeper into WM's good graces.

>

> TCM is not a CAM modality and it is not WM. It is a

> parallel medicine as legitimate, professional and unique as,

> say, Dentistry. If we are going to flourish, we have to

> assert ourselves as experts in a necessary, parallel field

> of medicine. We have to convince the greater population

> that, if they want to know about herbs, we are the ones to

> ask - the same way you go to a dentist if you want to know

> about your teeth. A patient mentions to his cardiologist

> that he has a raging toothache; she refers him to a

> dentist. A patient mentions to his cardiologist that he has

> a whole cluster of GI symptoms that sound like IBS; she

> refers him to us.

>

> Ever optimistic,

> Laurie Burton

 

_________

Geoffrey E. Hudson, MTCM, L.Ac. 1833 Harvard Avenue

http://www.AcupunctureAndHerbs.com Seattle, WA 98122

206.223.2777 Ancient tradition, Modern healthcare

[Guest guest]

, " Geoffrey Hudson " <list@a...>

wrote: - did you have any trouble having your work

> published?

 

 

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I actually have not been published in

that journal. However I would be surprised if they do not receive quite a few

good TCM articles already. If you have ever looked at the grants awarded by

the NIH to study CAM, you can see what kind of pressure Alt Ther must be

under. There are lots and lots of vested economic interests pushing every

imaginable form of " therapy " and attempting to gain legitimacy through

research and publication. Ironically perhaps, the very research apparatus we

need to gain legitimacy ourselves (NIH) actually contributes to the widespread

public impression that we are a bunch of crystal waving fantics. The CAM

crowd has essentially taken a " multi-cultural " view that any therapy that

anybody purports to work is worth studying. so the venerable tradition of

TCM gets no more attention, in fact, even less than things like touch for health

(NOTE: while TFH may have immense value, I don't think anyone on this list

would say it has more potential to offer the world than 2000 year old TCM)

 

[Guest guest]

Hi!

I spoke with researchers from NIH about CAM study.

The challenge for acupuncture study is that how are you going to design sham

needle treatment vs acupuncture treatment.

It's like surgeons have hard time to design the study related to surgery

technique.

The herbal study is also challenging. Chinese herbal formula tend to be multi

herbs and how are you going to standardized the formula vs placebo vs western

medications study.

NIH folks also indicated that they didn't see a good quality design of research

study from Chinese medicine practitioners. They suspect that there is lack of

research design training through Chinese medicine programs in the US. Most of

the grants were given to Chinese medicine practitioners who had training from

China and they had their PhD training in biological science at USA.

Thus, I believe that there is a need to have a group of Chinese medicine

practitioners who will take research design courses and able to write the

grants. It looks like you got to know how to talk with Western medicine

research language before you can get any grants from NIH.

P.S. I worked as research assistance when I was in Hopkins nursing school. So I

know how hard it is to go through the process of research.

 

Ta-Ya Lee, CRNP, LAc

Johns Hopkins Community Physician

 

Ironically perhaps, the very research apparatus we

need to gain legitimacy ourselves (NIH) actually contributes to the widespread

public impression that we are a bunch of crystal waving fantics. The CAM

crowd has essentially taken a " multi-cultural " view that any therapy that

anybody purports to work is worth studying. so the venerable tradition of

TCM gets no more attention, in fact, even less than things like touch for health

(NOTE: while TFH may have immense value, I don't think anyone on this list

would say it has more potential to offer the world than 2000 year old TCM)

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Ta Ya,

 

This response precisely encapsulates the issue. Well done. I've successfully written a graduate research grant for National Science Foundation funding for research on global shut down mechanisms of human female X chromosome chromatin. It was a walk in the park compared to my friend Howard Moffett's attempt to get N.I.H. funding at the American College of TCM for a head to head test with WM vs. CM on diarrhea treatments. Howard so well noted that the biggest killer of children world wide is diarrhea and it's sequelae. Your point that NIH funds research based on the Western medical and Western basic science paradigm should be strongly noted. Howard failed on all attempts and appeals to re-introduce his proposal for funding. Howard has since gone to Harvard for his MPH, became president of a branch of ACTCM and sat on the California State Acupuncture Board. He's a humble guy these days and happy to teach CM and work at Kaiser as an epidemiological research scientist.

 

What's to be learned from all this? As you so accurately note, it's already hard to get public funding for WM surgery research. Getting funding for CM herbal formulas or acupuncture is going to be a good deal more challenging. And even then, it's going to be about applying the fundamental structure and tests of Western science to some "standardized" CM therapy. There will be no pulses or tongue examination to see outcomes. There will be no CM diagnosis to see where the patients start nor where they finish. It will in most cases be an exercise in Western science looking at itself and its own boundaries.

 

I'll close with my recommendation that people read Thomas Kuhn's book The Structures of Scientific Revolution to get a handle on what research really is and how it's funded. I still believe that CM is a complete system which can only be tested from within its own paradigm. Only when that paradigm is fully present in the U.S. can it fully interact with WM.

 

All the Best,

Emmanuel Segmen

Merritt College, Asia Natural

 

Hi! I spoke with researchers from NIH about CAM study.The challenge for acupuncture study is that how are you going to design sham needle treatment vs acupuncture treatment. It's like surgeons have hard time to design the study related to surgery technique. The herbal study is also challenging. Chinese herbal formula tend to be multi herbs and how are you going to standardized the formula vs placebo vs western medications study.NIH folks also indicated that they didn't see a good quality design of research study from Chinese medicine practitioners. They suspect that there is lack of research design training through Chinese medicine programs in the US. Most of the grants were given to Chinese medicine practitioners who had training from China and they had their PhD training in biological science at USA.Thus, I believe that there is a need to have a group of Chinese medicine practitioners who will take research design courses and able to write the grants. It looks like you got to know how to talk with Western medicine research language before you can get any grants from NIH.P.S. I worked as research assistance when I was in Hopkins nursing school. So I know how hard it is to go through the process of research.Ta-Ya Lee, CRNP, LAcJohns Hopkins Community Physician

[Guest guest]

> Message: 16

> Thu, 29 May 2003 16:37:32 -0000

> " "

> Re: integration run amok

>

> --- " Geoffrey Hudson " wrote:

- did you have any trouble having your work published?

>

> I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I actually have not been published in

> that journal.

>

I'd be happy to see your byline there someday - in other

publications, too. Geoff was right about one key thing: if

we want to be heard, we have to make some noise. Noise loud

enough to be heard outside our own circle.

 

I suspect one reason we haven't gained more of a platform is

partially a symptom of an early attitude that liked staying

under the radar and on the fringe of the establishment.

That's clearly changing now and the need for it to change is

dramatically evidenced by the ephedra issue. We should have

been part of the dialogue but were not.

 

> However I would be surprised if they do not receive quite a few

> good TCM articles already. If you have ever looked at the grants awarded by

> the NIH to study CAM, you can see what kind of pressure Alt Ther must be

> under. There are lots and lots of vested economic interests pushing every

> imaginable form of " therapy " and attempting to gain legitimacy through

> research and publication.

>

It's time to get greedy. Greedy, noisy, a little roudy

maybe. They're not inviting us to the buffet, so let's

crash the party.

 

Laurie Burton