RE: Use of academic arguments for purposes of agency

[Guest guest]

<

nomaa doctorate

 

<<people may want to download the details on the NOMAA doctorate. as you

can see, they have every intention of teaching oriental medical theory

and traditional therapies. they just have no intention of catering to

the new age, alt med or mystically oriented crowd. I know that's

actually what many of the faithful find offensive about NOMAA. but if

you have a problem with them, it would be better to address actual

issues and not just set up straw men.>>

 

-

 

First - I must say that I have studied with Deke and consider him to be a

friend and colleague. I also consider him thesis to be a vital part of the

dialogue around Chinese medicine and modern medical culture.

The NOMAA group are adopting the theoretical interpretations that Donald

Kendall employs in ‘Dao of ’ as a basis for rendering policy

at a federal agency level. This is a dangerous precedent. The use of

materials that belong in the realm of academic debate and are the opinion of

a small group of people could have devastating impact on the significantly

pluralistic applications of Chinese medicine. To represent this as a factual

basis as opposed to a translational opinion based on a portion of the texts

is misleading at best.

 

The Huang Di Nei Jing is a book that was compiled by many different authors

and reflects a truly heterogeneous discussion that in many instances are

directly conflicted. While it is possible that there was a primary school

focused on an anatomical and physiological basis, this way of thinking is

definitely not the main stream of the Huang Di Nei Jing from which Kendell

claims to extract his theories.

 

While it is true that the chapters that Donald Kendell cites in ‘Dao of

’ use anatomical and physiological models, his notions are

not the core concepts of the seminal classics of Chinese medicine. Moreover,

Kendell’s work is not a translation of the Huang Di Nei Jing per se; rather,

it is an interpretation of pieces of the text with which many authorities

disagree.

 

Contrary to what Kendell suggests, the core principles of current Chinese

medical practices are found in Chapters 5 and 74. In addition, Kendell

completely misses the truth the ancient authors attempted to convey with

diagnostic and treatment principles are based on yin yang and five phase

principles. This is readily proven in the Chinese classics and later

commentaries.

 

Best regards,

 

Will

 

 

 

William R. Morris, L.Ac., O.M.D., M.S.Ed.

Secretary, AAOM

Dean of Educational Advancement

Emperor's College of Oriental Medicine

310-453-8300 phone

310-829-3838 fax

will

[Guest guest]

, " will " <will@e...> wrote:

 

>

> Contrary to what Kendell suggests, the core principles of current Chinese

> medical practices are found in Chapters 5 and 74. In addition, Kendell

> completely misses the truth the ancient authors attempted to convey with

> diagnostic and treatment principles are based on yin yang and five phase

> principles. This is readily proven in the Chinese classics and later

> commentaries.

 

 

So you say. We have had this debate before and I know you and I have different

ideas of

what constitutes " proof " . So there will be no resolution to this matter. I can

only state my

piece. The acupuncture commentaries in much of recent chinese history represent

stagnant dogma, IMO. When the chinese stopped looking inside the body, I think

they

may have lost touch with the actual meaning of the classics. The nei jing is a

heavily

edited political text. The fact that commentary through history emphasized

endless

rationale over actual observation may have been a flaw that was accidentally

built into the

distortions of the original text. In any event, your position does not justify

keeping

NOMAA from a

seat at the table. They do represent a sizable number of practitioners. they

certainly have

as much right at the table as worseley practitioners do, whose positions are

also only

flimsily supported by most TCM scholars. The alliance umbrellas every new age

style of

acupuncture there is. Somehow these NOMAA guys are the enemy? uh-uh. A truly

dangerous

precedent is the development of an entire field largely based upon pseudoscience

and

quasi-mysticism.

I am not claiming this is your approach, but it is the dominant theme in the

field as

perceived by outsiders. As a

reminder, I have never supported any doctorate as of yet, so this is not me

taking sides.

Whether you personally like Deke or not, this really seems to be censorship of a

hated

opponent by

the status quo. The vitriolic tone is clear in many of the published

corresponcences. I am

curious upon what basis Deke's detractors claim his scholarship is

not valid. If it is merely upon the words of Paul Unschuld, we have had that

discussion

here already and no one was convinced. I guess his argument is too heady for us

simpletons. The irony of course is that everyone I know who reads Deke has been

propelled towards deeper study of the classics, not further away. so what is

the danger

here?

 

[Guest guest]

, " will " <will@e...> wrote:

 

The use of

> materials that belong in the realm of academic debate and are the opinion of

> a small group of people could have devastating impact on the significantly

> pluralistic applications of Chinese medicine.

 

 

You would be correct if the existence of the NOMAA doctorate would somehow

eliminate

ACAOM's parallel track of development or the existing master's degree. But it

will do

neither. I do not believe the NOMAA OMD program will replace other styles of

education.

It is just one strict mandate as an option. Schools can still go the ACAOM

route or evenbe

accredited by both agencies and offer both programs. NOMAA just argues that

ACAOM

really has adopted a somewhat flexible standard to allow diversity. NOMAA wants

a strict

and very specific standard to achieve a specific goal. How does that hurt the

field? I

would never support an agency that tried to restrict practice of those licensed

or trained

differently or even not licensed at all. I strongly support state health freedom

acts and US

common law decisions that allow unlicensed practice of herbology throughout the

US.

 

The way I see it is the NOMAA folks want an entry level doc degree now. ACAOM

does not

give them any recourse, so they are going it on their own. They could do a

master's

program in the style they like and then spend half a decade getting approval (or

not) for

their DAOM and then there is a good chance that the new age priests who rule the

field

would never approve their radical materialistic program anyway. At least that

is the way

they must see it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Somehow these NOMAA guys are the enemy

>>>Todd the only comment i have is let see what the little Hoover commission

will deal out to us as it is a direct effect of the way they put forth their

arguments. To me that is more important than anything at this point as we may be

all talking about ideas and philosophy while loosing our professional standing.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree.

 

 

On May 23, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> Somehow these NOMAA guys are the enemy

>>> the only comment i have is let see what the little Hoover

>>>> commission will deal out to us as it is a direct effect of the way

>>>> they put forth their arguments. To me that is more important than

>>>> anything at this point as we may be all talking about ideas and

>>>> philosophy while loosing our professional standing.

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> Somehow these NOMAA guys are the enemy

> >>>Todd the only comment i have is let see what the little Hoover commission

will deal

out to us as it is a direct effect of the way they put forth their arguments. To

me that is

more important than anything at this point as we may be all talking about ideas

and

philosophy while loosing our professional standing.

 

 

wasn't that CSOMA who caused that debacle? I think NOMAA was just along for the

ride at

that point. NOMAA has a pretty fair method for established px to qualify to sit

for their

exam. If Little hoover says we need more training to maintain our scope, NOMAA

might

swoop right in. From an AT article in 2003:

 

" Graduates with a master's degree in acupuncture and Oriental medicine with less

than five

years experience need to have a minimum of 2,800 hours training, including

herbal

medicine and biomedical courses, and will be required to complete a full

one-year

clerkship program (1,200 hours) to sit for the step two NOMLE. Previous

graduates and

licensed practitioners with more than five years experience who completed their

" makeup "

classes, including herbal medicine and biomedical courses, need to have a

minimum of

2,800 hours, including a maximum credit of 20 percent of the makeup hours for

continuing education courses and advanced courses taught. This category of

licensed

practitioner then needs to complete a 600-hour minimum comprehensive clerkship

program to verify clinical skills and competencies to qualify for taking the

step two

NOMLE. "

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> I agree.

>

>

 

 

oh that was your one liner. I thought you and Alon had traded bodies. :-)

 

todd

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I'm Alon mobius.

 

 

On May 23, 2004, at 8:24 PM, wrote:

 

> , " "

> <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

>> I agree.

>>

>>

>

>

> oh that was your one liner. I thought you and Alon had traded bodies.

> :-)

>

> todd

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

wasn't that CSOMA who caused that debacle? I think NOMAA

>>>Actually the same individuals.Who will decide who is qualified to teach these

CEUs? The chrio brainwashed crowd?

Alon