Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 In a message dated 10/13/2003 1:58:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenrose2008 writes: So rather than question why Ted or any other individual should at this point in time come under such scrutiny and criticism, I'm really far more interested in people thinking about why they never stopped to ask themselves or anyone else the same questions. They seem pretty obvious to me. Why do we live in a professinal culture that is so content with mere assertion and so apparently afraid to find out? Ken I wouldn't suggest that anyone is afraid of finding out anything. We, as our forefathers from abroad, are still learning how things actually work. Most people are not innovators and trust in their teachers wisdom. As we understand that everyone is still learning, then it becomes a natural course that we question everything, including the fundamental premise that our current understandings are founded. This way, we won't be tempted take for granted the accuracy of the researchers interpretation of the findings of their studies. Hope your day is well, Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " > But in the context of the discussion that > we were having about the accuracy and > ultimately the reliability of various sources > of information in the field, they emerged > as obvious points that one would want > to know about anyone who was purveying > expert knowledge in a field. >>> Ken: Like you and Bob, I don't think anyone anyone should be above scrutiny. In this profession, perhaps one way to keep track of how people demonstrate their sense of reliability is with their dollars. While that raises many other issues, it is one way. It seems to me that Ted has been relied on and acknowledged as generally accurate source because he has been around long enough to show that what he offers helps assure clinical effectiveness. Ultimately, clinical effectiveness, and not just academic rigor, will judge the " reliability of various sources of information in the field " in both Chinese and English. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Jim, > > > Ken: > > Like you and Bob, I don't think anyone anyone should be above > scrutiny. > > In this profession, perhaps one way to keep track of how people > demonstrate their sense of reliability is with their dollars. Not sure what this means, but it has a nice ring to it. While > that raises many other issues, it is one way. It seems to me that > Ted has been relied on and acknowledged as generally accurate source > because he has been around long enough to show that what he offers > helps assure clinical effectiveness. OK. Can you provide some evidence that supports this conclusion? Or are you assuming that survival of his status equates or reduces to clinical effectiveness? Or is it just common sense, i.e., everybody knows that to have endured and to have been relied upon as an accurate source in and of itself is a demonstration of efficacy? > > Ultimately, clinical effectiveness, and not just academic rigor, > will judge the " reliability of various sources of information in the > field " in both Chinese and English. > > Jim Ramholz Here, Jim, you have the advantage of knowing the ultimate outcome. I have no idea. I would just love to get some questions asked...and, who knows, maybe even answered. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " > While that raises many other issues, it is one way. It seems to me that Ted has been relied on and acknowledged as generally accurate source because he has been around long enough to show that what he offers helps assure clinical effectiveness. > > OK. Can you provide some evidence > that supports this conclusion? > Or are you assuming that survival > of his status equates or reduces > to clinical effectiveness? >>> My conclusion is based on the fact that practitioners who have studied with him are effectively and repeatedly able to diagnose and treat patients. Patients get better; that is why his opinion has continually been in demand. What is the standard that you want to hold him---us---to? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Jim, I don't have a standard in mind. I think that we're a long way from a realistic discussion about such standards. What you're saying is that you have made up your mind on the issue based on the fact that people say so. The standard that you're using does not seem like an adequate one to me. So if you want to advance the discussion about standards, shall we proceed from this point by either agreeing or disagreeing that " people say so " is adequate evidence of clinical efficacy? I vote no. I'm losing track of the thread. What are we talking about? Do you think it is improper to raise the questions that I've raised? And if so, why? Because people say he's a good teacher? I don't dispute that he's a good teacher. I've heard plenty of people say so. He's a pioneer in the field. He's highly influential. Odd that just a few days ago you were talking about his book as if no one pays any attention to him any more. And now you're arguing based on the fact of what a clinically effective teacher he is. It's fine with me that he's a great teacher. I brought the whole thing up in the context of a discussion about the intergrity of information sources and the character of the representations that constitute the foundations of the understanding of Chinese medicine in the English language. Check the subtitle of Web. That's what it says: understanding Chinese medicine. I think the context and intent of my comments has been made quite clear. No? If not, I'm happy to clarify anything that remains unclear. I've raised some questions. Either there are answers or there aren't. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " wrote: > What you're saying is that you have > made up your mind on the issue > based on the fact that people say > so. >>> I've made up my mind not because people " say so, " but because patients get well doing what he prescribes. If he can make people well and his students can make people well from what they learn from him, then that is an " adequate " demonstration of reliability to my mind. But perhaps I'm too easily swayed. You tell me. > The standard that you're using does > not seem like an adequate one to me. Perhpas you have something else in mind. What does " adequate " mean? > I vote no. Two votes down, only 9,000 more to go---or 850 if we just limit the voting to this forum! > Do you think it is improper to raise > the questions that I've raised? I don't think it is improper at all. No idea and no one is above scrutiny---not Ted, not Unschuld, not you nor I. I've offered some considerations about how to answer these questions; but you don't seem persuaded. What would persuade you? > He's a pioneer in the field. He's > highly influential. Odd that just a few > days ago you were talking about his > book as if no one pays any attention > to him any more. And now you're > arguing based on the fact of what > a clinically effective teacher he is. >>> Even though he is not important to my own work, I can appreciate that he his important to many others. > Either there are answers or there > aren't. >>>> Well . . . perhaps . . . perhaps not. Some people say that because you ask and how you ask the question frames the answer. So, you need to offer some criteria for how these questions can be answered. What are they? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " wrote: > Tell me about where you went to > school. >>> Ken: I started studying with a Korean acupuncturist in 1974. Later, I went to and graduated from the Chicago School of Oriental Medical Arts in the early 80s. It no longer exists. I sat for and passed the NCCA exam when it was first offered in the early 80s. And you? Where did you graduate? When did you take the NCCA exam? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Re Ted Kaptchuk - there's a Scientific American Frontiers profile/interview of Ted on http://www.pbs.org/saf/1307/features/kaptchuk.htm I feel moved to comment on some of Ted's statements: 1) " It may be that ordinary people have demanded the investigation of alternative medicine. " I've heard a lot of biomedical practitioners demanding the investigation of alternative medicine, but never a member of the ordinary public. 2) " I think the NIH has every right and absolute responsibility to be absolutely scientific in everything it does because that's its job. " In the light of comments like Straus' quotation below, this comment could be interpreted as an invitation for the biomedicalisation of CAM, courtesy the US taxpayer, with doctors/scientists in charge. It's a pity that Ted says nothing referring to paradigm-sensitive research, not to mention the much more complex paradigm/inter-paradigm considerations that are paramount to approaching this issue thoroughly, including Kuhn's concept of the incommensurability of paradigms. Head of the US National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Stephen E. Straus, when he anticipated the status of CAM in the year 2020: As a result of rigorous scientific investigation, several therapeutic and preventive modalities currently deemed elements of complementary and alternative medicine will have proven effective. Therefore, by 2020, these interventions will have been incorporated into conventional medical education and practice, and the term " complementary and alternative medicine " will be superseded by the concept of " integrative medicine. " The biological and pharmacological basis for effectiveness of selected herbal and nutritional supplements will be clarified, leading to their standardization and to the rational design of yet more potent congeners. Advances in neurobiology will elucidate mechanisms underlying ancient practices such as acupuncture and meditation, as well as the phenomenon of " the placebo effect. " Other modalities will have proven unsafe or ineffective, and an informed public will have rejected them. The field of integrative medicine will be seen as providing novel insights and tools for human health, and not as a source of intellectual and philosophical tension that insinuates itself between and among practitioners of the healing arts and their patients. Marsha F. Goldsmith (ed.). 2020 Vision: NIH Heads Foresee the Future. JAMA Vol. 282 No. 24, December 22/29, 1999 3) " It may be that alternative medicines have demanded the placebo investigation. " Has anyone on this list, eager for the scientific study of CM, demanded the placebo investigation? 4) " The scientific revolution is about getting rid of culturally embedded behaviors, uncovering natural universals. " I'd say that the scientific revolution should be considered a Western cultural phenomenon. Nietsche was the first person I know of to see the continuum between science and Christianity. Science may believe that it deals with universals, but then again so does almost every philosophical and religious system. The focus of science on issues like materialism, analysis (conceptually considering the whole as the sum of its parts), mechanisation as a model, separation of mind-body, linearity, determinism, are specific Western European cultural constructs and worldviews. 4) " I'm a scientist, but I can live with superstition. Scientific perspective is so rational that it forgets that the passion and foibles of human beings are part of the dialogue and discourse of all ages. " Are science and superstition the only two applicable categories for CAM? I note that while Unschuld is careful to distinguish between science and CM, he does not characterise CM as superstitious, at least not in the material I've read. Wainwright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 Ken, Fascinating account. You could work in the UK at the moment (one doesn't need any training, as a matter of fact), but I'm fairly confident that with your training, if you acted quickly, you would qualify for state registration here when it comes into force. So, Ken, consider yourself qualified to practice in the UK, if you like! .. Best wishes, Wainwright > Jim, > > I've recounted the story of my > own education and training in > Chinese medicine before on this > list. But here's the short timeline. > > I was introduced to the subject > back before the laws existed in > California where I grew up. I met > my first teacher of acupuncture, > Chinese herbal medicine and massage, > Marshall Ho'o in 1970 at Cal Arts. > > I studied with Marshall for four > years, and by that time laws had > come into existence. I chose at > the time not to accept the option > of being grandfathered into the > newly established LAc licensure > because I was skeptical even back > then that the State of California > could adequately define, let alone > regulate the practice. > > For many years I pursued my own > study and practice of taiji, > acupuncture, tuina, and related > topics with various teachers and > largely on my own, while doing > other things to earn a living. > > In 1991 I decided to devote myself to > the study of Chinese medicine and > went back to school to get a master's. > I enrolled at Emperor's and found > that I wasn't satisfied with the > program there and that my dissatisfaction > wasn't so much with the school as > with the system of which it was a > part. > > Because I still didn't have as a main > objective a professional practice, it was > relatively easy for me to pack up and > move to China, just on the hunch that > there I might find something more to > my liking with respect to educational > opportunities in Chinese medicine. > > I spent several years from 1992 through > 1996 studying and apprenticing at the > Chengdu University of TCM (as well as > a variety of other public and private > clinics, hospitals, schools, etc.), and I also > developed my interest in issues related > to translation and the context for understanding > Chinese medicine. I taught language and > translations classes for graduate and > post graduates students there. > > Until about 1996 or so, I don't recall > exactly, it was not possible for non-Chinese > students to enroll in the degree granting > program at the university. And when the > option did become available, I chose > not to start over in a four or five > year program. I had already by that > time charted out some fairly concrete > research objectives of my own and had > access to all the materials that I needed. > > I have no graduate degress. I have no > professional licenses. > > I write and I teach. I do not practice > medicine as a profession. > > I don't think I've ever been unclear > about any of these matters, but there > you go. All spelled out. > > Now, ironically, and once again tesifying > to the inadequacy of this medium of > communication, all I meant by tell > me about where you went to school was > that that is all I wanted to suggest > in my questions concerning the Macau > Institute of . > > I see that Dan Bensky has taken the > time to reply on some of those points, > so I'll shift over to that now. > > Ken > 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.