your opinion on Deke Kendall's ideas

[Guest guest]

Hi Todd and all,

 

IMHO, creating a Doctorate entry level Acupuncture profession would do

more to halt the progression of TCM in country than anything else I can think

of.

No surprise to me that two Dr.'s are behind the action to slow down the

progress of Acupuncture, which one of the biggest challenges to the medical

Docs income stream.

Taking a human, which is according to physicists is over 99% space and

removing the notion energy/spiritual aspect of life, is of course another way to

separate us from the truth of our profession.

We are beings of chi. The breath of God. I am sure there are a few here

who practice Thai Chi and meditation. These exercises in energy/chi have been

taught seemingly for ever.

Since there is no separation between chi and life, how could we separate

chi from our practice.

 

Theses men are a menace to our profession, and a natural way of life.

 

Chris

 

In a message dated 4/19/2004 12:54:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

writes:

> Dr. Kendall asserted that pretty much all the English texts on Chinese

> medicine are inherently flawed by inaccurate translation. ALL the

> texts. He does not believe that Chinese medicine is predicated on

> concepts of Qi, he does not speak of meridians through which Qi flows,

> nor even of yin or yang. These concepts he dismisses as

> " metaphysical " and " religious " (and erroneous in their original and

> thenceforth promulgated translations) and having no real place in the

> understanding of Chinese medicine as a science, nor as a basis of

> understanding the history of Chinese medicine. He therefore believes

> much of the education received by students who study in programs in

> this country are getting a bastardization of the true, scientific

> nature of which is devoid of spiritual or

> metaphysical concepts such as Qi. Pretty weird stuff from my

> perspective. But it is by this reasoning that he believes that

> Master's level graduates are for the most part unfit to truly

> integrate into the health care system in this country, especially as

> primary care providers, and that is his goal and the goal of NOMAA: to

> rectify what they see as deficiencies in understanding, particularly

> of Western science and how it incorporates into what we do, in the

> current curricula.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

If anyone else wants to comment, please post here and/or email the

sender directly

 

 

 

> Srothlac

> Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:02:19 PM US/Pacific

>

> Question re: your opinion on Deke Kendall's ideas

>

> Hello Dr. Luger,

>  

> My name is Sharon Roth, I am an alumna of PCOM (97) and I now sit on

> the Board of Oriental Medicine in Nevada.  We have a meeting coming up

> this Saturday which will involve some issues of possible huge impact

> on the profession as a whole.  At the meeting this upcoming weekend,

> we will be facing proposed regulations (and voting on them) which

> would pave the way towards an entry-level doctorate program being

> established in NV, which would then open the door for NOMAA to become

> established.  NOMAA is the new accreditting organization trying to get

> off the ground which would accredit entry level doctoral programs (or

> so they hope).  Dr. Deke Kendall is instrumental in this group (along

> with Dr. Ted Priebe), and the group held a meeting/seminar yesterday

> (Sat. the 17th) here in Las Vegas, at which time I had the opportunity

> to speak at length with Dr. Kendall.

>  

> I am writing to you because I see that you have reviewed Dr. Kendall's

> book, which I have yet to read, and I was hoping I could get a broader

> sense of your reaction to it.  As I have not read it, I do not know

> how much of what he discussed yesterday is included in his book. 

> However, he said some things to me yesterday that I found both

> compelling and disturbing, and I would appreciate your input.

>  

> Dr. Kendall asserted that pretty much all the English texts on Chinese

> medicine are inherently flawed by inaccurate translation.  ALL the

> texts.  He does not believe that Chinese medicine is predicated on

> concepts of Qi, he does not speak of meridians through which Qi flows,

> nor even of yin or yang.  These concepts he dismisses as

> " metaphysical " and " religious " (and erroneous in their original and

> thenceforth promulgated translations) and having no real place in the

> understanding of Chinese medicine as a science, nor as a basis of

> understanding the history of Chinese medicine.  He therefore believes

> much of the education received by students who study in programs in

> this country are getting a bastardization of the true, scientific

> nature of which is devoid of spiritual or

> metaphysical concepts such as Qi.  Pretty weird stuff from my

> perspective.  But it is by this reasoning that he believes that

> Master's level graduates are for the most part unfit to truly

> integrate into the health care system in this country, especially as

> primary care providers, and that is his goal and the goal of NOMAA: to

> rectify what they see as deficiencies in understanding, particularly

> of Western science and how it incorporates into what we do, in the

> current curricula. 

> So, briefly, I'd like your opinion on: 

> 1.  Dr. Kendall's assertions as to the inaccuracy of OM education in

> this country

> 2.  Do you think there should be an entry-level doctorate, and why or

> why not?

>  

> Sorry this email is getting long and drawn out, but I need to gather

> as many facts and opinions about a variety of subjects as I can in

> these next few days, so that I can clarify my own position on these

> topics.  If NV allows these regulations through, it could very well be

> a foot in the door for a whole new road for OM in this country, and

> that's pretty daunting from my perspective! 

> Thanks so much for your input.  I'm looking forward to hearing it.  If

> you prefer to call as to email, my phone number follows.

> Thanks again,

> Sharon Roth

> 702.259.6996

>  

> ps.  if you have any suggestions as to whom else I should contact with

> these questions, please let me know (with contact info, if you have

> it, thanks)

>

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think that I'd like to take up a position in between Deke's " no

translation has gotten it right " and the " we are all beings of light "

approach.

 

Deke's position kind of falls flat when I take into consideration all

of the better Chinese trained teachers I've had. My favorite said

something along the lines of " We treat the Qi here. " when having been

asked about some western differentiation. There are definitely some

translation issues floating around our profession, but his statements

really don't stand up to all the insight and training that I've gotten

outside of the literary arena. This one-to-one training for the most

part does not disagree with the books that we have, those that stress

the TCM anyway.

 

We can go too far the other direction too. The Chinese practitioners

whom I most respect don't treat the spiritual content of any patient's

complaints. They treat the presentation. That makes oodles of sense to

me.

 

I was recently asked by a student intern for permission to do a

" Spiritual Acupuncture " technique that was basically a bunch of

triangles that connected chakras and so forth. None of the points were

contraindicated given what I was seeing so I let the intern proceed,

but I did suggest a few added points. What the intern didn't realize

was that I had just changed the shapes from two triangles to my

initials. I figured that since I'm a spiritual being, putting my

initials into the treatment might have some healing properties.

 

As for the doctorate being the entry level training. I like that idea.

Over the weekend, I had lunch with one of those respected Chinese

practitioners. We talked about how a patient will take a drug for two

years with no benefit and perhaps plenty of side effects or get some

other therapy for a long time without any improvement. However, keeping

patients around for a therapeutically significant time with acupuncture

and herbs is very difficult. We decided that we can wear that white

lab coat, but in the hearts and minds of our patients, we still don't

have that credibility that the MD's do.

 

Perhaps the doctorate will help to change that. Something needs to.

 

-al.

 

 

On Apr 19, 2004, at 1:05 PM, Musiclear wrote:

 

> Hi Todd and all,

>

> IMHO, creating a Doctorate entry level Acupuncture profession

> would do

> more to halt the progression of TCM in country than anything else I

> can think

> of.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

, Musiclear@a... wrote:

 

> Taking a human, which is according to physicists is over 99% space and

> removing the notion energy/spiritual aspect of life, is of course another way

to

> separate us from the truth of our profession.

 

How does the fact that on the level of atoms and electrons we are mostly

empty space have anything to do with spirituality on one hand or chinese

medicine and qi on the other. I see no truth being challenged here. that

really

sounds like a religious position. You may consider that position to be " truth

of

our profession " , but I most certainly do not. Physics gives no insight into

either biology or spirituality. I consider TCM to be a biological medicine and

see much mutual correlation between these two disciplines. On the other

hand, all postulated correlations I have ever seen between physics, mysticism

and TCM, etc, have been specious at best. certainly none has ever been

experimentally proven or shown to be practical in any way. I think the most

damaging position we can take as a profession is to reject works like Deke's

and embrace the bogus pseudoscientific model of energy medicine. It may

surprise you to know that metaphysics and magic interest me as personal

pursuits, but I think they have played no important role in mainstream

medicine of east or west. Again, the yellow emperor's classic, the

fountainhead of CM,, is an explicit rejection of mysticism according to all

commentators.

 

[Guest guest]

, Al Stone <alstone@b...> wrote:

My favorite said

> something along the lines of " We treat the Qi here. " when having been

> asked about some western differentiation.

 

Al

 

You need to ask this same teacher what he/she meant by this. Because Deke

does not deny the existence of qi. He reads chinese so he could not have

missed the word. when one says " we treat qi " , he says they could either mean

bodily function, bodily vitality or some substance that flows through certain

vessels. One could say " treat the qi " and mean only one of the first two ideas.

In fact, if one is talking about herbs, then this might be likely as channel qi

plays no major role in herbology. If one means the stuff in the channels (jing

qi), then one must be asked " what stuff " in " what channels " ? while all my

chinese teachers likewise speak of treating the qi, when pressed on this point

none of them seem to conceive of the channels as " energy conduits " (invisible

pathways through which something invisible flows). In fact, the idea that

channels are primitive anatomical attempts to describe the neurovascular

system seems to be widely held amongst Chinese in my circles. I know no

chinese who believe there is a discrete system of channels nor any mysterious

energy yet to be discovered by western science.

 

[Guest guest]

On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:24 PM, wrote:

 

> I know no

> chinese who believe there is a discrete system of channels nor any

> mysterious

> energy yet to be discovered by western science.

 

I'm going to feel kind of silly asking this directly of Dr. Yang, but I

will tomorrow.

 

-al.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

, Al Stone <alstone@b...> wrote:

My favorite said

> something along the lines of " We treat the Qi here. " when having been

> asked about some western differentiation.

 

Al

 

You need to ask this same teacher what he/she meant by this. Because Deke

does not deny the existence of qi. He reads chinese so he could not have

missed the word. when one says " we treat qi " , he says they could either mean

bodily function, bodily vitality or some substance that flows through certain

vessels. One could say " treat the qi " and mean only one of the first two ideas.

In fact, if one is talking about herbs, then this might be likely as channel qi

plays no major role in herbology. If one means the stuff in the channels (jing

qi), then one must be asked " what stuff " in " what channels " ? while all my

chinese teachers likewise speak of treating the qi, when pressed on this point

none of them seem to conceive of the channels as " energy conduits " (invisible

pathways through which something invisible flows). In fact, the idea that

channels are primitive anatomical attempts to describe the neurovascular

system seems to be widely held amongst Chinese in my circles. I know no

chinese who believe there is a discrete system of channels nor any mysterious

energy yet to be discovered by western science.

 

[Guest guest]

all,

I just recently acquired Deke's book and was astounded to find

myself re-thinking much of my education in this field. Much of

Donald's ideas seem entirely consistent with common sense and he

paints a compelling history of where the mis-interpretations began.

His book is not at all a completely materialistic view. He

simply argues that the Huang di Nei Jing/Ling Shu is the product of a

scientific endeavor into the physiological workings of the human

body. The ancient Chinese were fully aware of the anatomy and

physiology of the body and obtained much of this knowledge through

post-mortem studies.

I didn't gather from my reading that he is strongly anti-

metaphysical or spirtual in his interpretation. He leaves the five

phases alone and if anything he argues for the inherent logic in it's

expression.

Donald if anything has done a major service to our profession. By

doing away with the abstract concepts of " meridians " and Qi as energy

he places the roots of on a much firmer ground.

As I read on, it amazes me that it took us so long to notice the

grounds of our own medicine. Network vessels as collateral branches

and the granchild vessels as arterioles and venules makes perfect

sense to me.

It is simply the most inspiring work I have read on Chinese

Medicine in long time. I think it should become the standard

introduction to our field for prospective students. It should

replace " The Web that has no Weaver "

You have to read this book before you make judgements on what

Donald's intentions are and for that matter what

is. I think Todd summed it up fairly well, when he called Deke a Neo-

Classicist. Believe it or not, he is on our side.

matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

wrote:

> If anyone else wants to comment, please post here and/or email the

> sender directly

>

>

>

> > Srothlac@a...

> > Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:02:19 PM US/Pacific

> > @c...

> > Question re: your opinion on Deke Kendall's ideas

> >

> > Hello Dr. Luger,

> >  

> > My name is Sharon Roth, I am an alumna of PCOM (97) and I now sit

on

> > the Board of Oriental Medicine in Nevada.  We have a meeting

coming up

> > this Saturday which will involve some issues of possible huge

impact

> > on the profession as a whole.  At the meeting this upcoming

weekend,

> > we will be facing proposed regulations (and voting on them) which

> > would pave the way towards an entry-level doctorate program being

> > established in NV, which would then open the door for NOMAA to

become

> > established.  NOMAA is the new accreditting organization trying

to get

> > off the ground which would accredit entry level doctoral programs

(or

> > so they hope).  Dr. Deke Kendall is instrumental in this group

(along

> > with Dr. Ted Priebe), and the group held a meeting/seminar

yesterday

> > (Sat. the 17th) here in Las Vegas, at which time I had the

opportunity

> > to speak at length with Dr. Kendall.

> >  

> > I am writing to you because I see that you have reviewed Dr.

Kendall's

> > book, which I have yet to read, and I was hoping I could get a

broader

> > sense of your reaction to it.  As I have not read it, I do not

know

> > how much of what he discussed yesterday is included in his book. 

> > However, he said some things to me yesterday that I found both

> > compelling and disturbing, and I would appreciate your input.

> >  

> > Dr. Kendall asserted that pretty much all the English texts on

Chinese

> > medicine are inherently flawed by inaccurate translation.  ALL

the

> > texts.  He does not believe that Chinese medicine is predicated

on

> > concepts of Qi, he does not speak of meridians through which Qi

flows,

> > nor even of yin or yang.  These concepts he dismisses as

> > " metaphysical " and " religious " (and erroneous in their original

and

> > thenceforth promulgated translations) and having no real place in

the

> > understanding of Chinese medicine as a science, nor as a basis of

> > understanding the history of Chinese medicine.  He therefore

believes

> > much of the education received by students who study in programs

in

> > this country are getting a bastardization of the true, scientific

> > nature of which is devoid of spiritual or

> > metaphysical concepts such as Qi.  Pretty weird stuff from my

> > perspective.  But it is by this reasoning that he believes that

> > Master's level graduates are for the most part unfit to truly

> > integrate into the health care system in this country, especially

as

> > primary care providers, and that is his goal and the goal of

NOMAA: to

> > rectify what they see as deficiencies in understanding,

particularly

> > of Western science and how it incorporates into what we do, in

the

> > current curricula. 

> > So, briefly, I'd like your opinion on: 

> > 1.  Dr. Kendall's assertions as to the inaccuracy of OM education

in

> > this country

> > 2.  Do you think there should be an entry-level doctorate, and

why or

> > why not?

> >  

> > Sorry this email is getting long and drawn out, but I need to

gather

> > as many facts and opinions about a variety of subjects as I can

in

> > these next few days, so that I can clarify my own position on

these

> > topics.  If NV allows these regulations through, it could very

well be

> > a foot in the door for a whole new road for OM in this country,

and

> > that's pretty daunting from my perspective! 

> > Thanks so much for your input.  I'm looking forward to hearing

it.  If

> > you prefer to call as to email, my phone number follows.

> > Thanks again,

> > Sharon Roth

> > 702.259.6996

> >  

> > ps.  if you have any suggestions as to whom else I should contact

with

> > these questions, please let me know (with contact info, if you

have

> > it, thanks)

> >

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

> FAX:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:24 PM, wrote:

 

>> something along the lines of " We treat the Qi here. " when having been

>> asked about some western differentiation.

>

> Al

>

> You need to ask this same teacher what he/she meant by this. Because

> Deke

> does not deny the existence of qi. He reads chinese so he could not

> have

> missed the word. when one says " we treat qi " , he says they could

> either mean

> bodily function, bodily vitality or some substance that flows through

> certain

> vessels.

 

Okay, " We treat the Qi here " was looked into today.

 

I asked three Chinese trained practitioners the following questions,

included are the results:

 

When we treat the Qi, are we talking about organ function?

 

yes, yes, yes (all three responded yes.)

 

When we treat the Qi, are we treating body vitality?

 

yes, yes (two yes, and one didn't understand the question)

 

When we treat the Qi, are we treating the channel Qi?

 

yes, yes, yes.

 

Is there an invisible material called " Qi " that flows through invisible

channels?

 

yes, yes, yes.

 

Did the ancient Chinese invent the meridian system in an attempt to

explain the nervous and cardiovascular systems, or did they conceive of

the meridian system as separate from the nervous and cardiovascular

systems.

 

1. they conceived of them all as separate systems.

2. they conceived of them all as separate systems.

3. they conceived of them all as separate systems but with some overlap

in function.

 

So, there you have it. According to those trained in China, the

definition of Qi as we are generally taught it, is the same.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson