Philosophy, Science and Pseudoscience

[Guest guest]

Louis Pasteur, pioneer in bacteriology, is reputed to have said that

the bacterium is nothing and the terrain everythingf

>>>>And obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. One cannot dismiss the

life saving effects of antibiotics and at the same time the exclusion of terrain

as well as overuse must not be ignored. The problem is that many start making

clinical statement with little direct experience and with no valid evidence at

all, just because they believe is sounds corrects, makes sense, or just want to

believe out of reaction to allopathic med. We must not fall into any of these

traps and advocate our beliefs to those that are willing to look at them

objectively. Statement of fact should only follow objective evaluation.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@e...>

wrote:

 

>

> People's philosophies differ markedly. However, adherents of

> Philosophy Y (say " New Agers " ) should not (IMO) demonise or

> denigrate those with Philosophy X (say those who hold fast to the

> concept of EBM).

 

 

Or vice-versa. Again, it is merely this. We are two, not one, and with

irreconcilable

differences. We can let each other go their own ways unimpeded, but it is

foolhardy to

think we can live together. Its like an ex-girlfriend who you wish the best,

but there is just

nothing productive left to talk about. I think our professional associations

should center

around one of the prevailing philosophies and not try to be an umbrella

organization. It

kind of reminds me of the republican big tent scam. You can vote republican

even if you

are a satanic babykiller, but you will go to hell. We can link forces when we

have mutual

goals, but I personally do not even want to discuss whether pursuing EBM is

reasonable or

not. If you believe otherwise, we have drastically divergent goals and no

compromise is

possible. If the charter of an org promotes EBM, then those who do not like it

can go

elsewhere and vice-versa. Why do we all need to get along again? Getting along

is often a

euphemism for selling out. I won't sell out and I don't want my opposition to

sell out

either. Your views are also welcome here in the CHA forum (that is it's

purpose), I just

have every intention of pursuing my goals and opposing others in other formal

undertakings. The debates we have are really not for us, since none of us have

ever been

swayed. They are for the lurkers who are not as polarized, yet still need to

decide where

they ultimately stand.

 

[Guest guest]

This whole debate goes straight back to the infamous AAAOM Chicago

convention of 10-12 years ago that led to the breakup of the AAAOM and

the founding of the National Alliance. At the time, the elected

leaders of the AAAOM wanted a TCM-style profession, while those who

split off to found the National Alliance wanted to maintain diversity

and freedom of choice. One of the problems here is the confusion

between a professional organization as a political tool and a

professional organization as a group of like-minded practitioners.

 

Basically, I see the AAOM (which evolved out of the old AAAOM) and the

National Alliance as a political organizations, with the AAOM having

more political clout and savvy. As such, I tend to favor the stance of

the National Alliance. That is, to work for the political and overall

social benefit of the profession as a whole no matter what school or

style. Politically, I approve of that philosophy even though,

politically, the National Alliance is not the more powerful of the two

orgs.

 

Personally, what I would like to see is something like what I

think, is suggesting. A big tent when it comes to our common political

survival and agenda, but then a number of smaller associations each

representing a particular style or school within the profession as a

whole. This would allow like-minded practitioners to associate with

their own, develop their own standards of diagnosis and therapy,

promote their own style to the public, etc. without detracting from

the large, more universal efforts to protect and improve our legal

right to practice.

 

Unfortunately, the National Alliance seems like an organization which

has lost its way. I don't see it making a strong statement of its

reason for existence. On the other hand, I see (or at least have seen)

the AAOM confusing politics with stylistic issues of personal choice.

While we need to stand together and pool our resources when it comes

to politics, I'd prefer the AAOM to stop trying to set national

standards of care. Standards of ethics are fine by me. I think we

could have a single code of professional ethics, but, when you get

into deciding what is or is not an acceptable part of Oriental

medicine, I think you get into trouble pretty quick, as this whole

discussion evidences.

 

There has to be a way of having our cake and eating it too as long as

we are willing to look at things with fresh eyes and an open mind. I

see no real reason why we can't have a big political tent and then a

number of smaller organizations for specific styles and modalities.

Take a look at the AOBTA, the American Oriental Bodywork Therapists

Association. They represent tui na, ammo/amma, and shiatsu. These are

some pretty distinct styles of Asian bodywork. Hell, doesn't

Masunaga's Zen shiatsu use 24 channels? Yet the AOBTA seems to

represent everyone just fine.

 

If someone can see a problem with this approach, I'd very much like to

hear it.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

I certainly think everything you've said here is very reasonable, and a

good strategy for the future.

 

 

On Jun 2, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> There has to be a way of having our cake and eating it too as long as

> we are willing to look at things with fresh eyes and an open mind. I

> see no real reason why we can't have a big political tent and then a

> number of smaller organizations for specific styles and modalities.

> Take a look at the AOBTA, the American Oriental Bodywork Therapists

> Association. They represent tui na, ammo/amma, and shiatsu. These are

> some pretty distinct styles of Asian bodywork. Hell, doesn't

> Masunaga's Zen shiatsu use 24 channels? Yet the AOBTA seems to

> represent everyone just fine.

>

> If someone can see a problem with this approach, I'd very much like to

> hear it.

[Guest guest]

At 7:56 PM +0000 6/2/04, Bob Flaws wrote:

>I tend to favor the stance of the National Alliance. That is, to

>work for the political and overall social benefit of the profession

>as a whole no matter what school or style.

--

Bob,

 

Hmmm...back when the National Alliance was starting up its leaders

came to a CAA conference in California, and we had a discussion with

them. As they went round introducing themselves, it quickly became

obvious that all of their representatives were acupuncture school

administrators; the person who appeared to be their leader was not

even an acupuncturist. This, of course, raised a rather serious doubt

about the validity of the Alliance's claim to represent the interests

of professional practitioners. When I brought this to their

attention, they really had no response. So, at least at that time, I

couldn't say with any certainty that the Alliance was representing

anything other than the interests of certain schools (none of which

were in California).

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Jun 2, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

>

> Personally, what I would like to see is something like what I

> think, is suggesting. A big tent when it comes to our common political

> survival and agenda, but then a number of smaller associations each

> representing a particular style or school within the profession as a

> whole.

 

Its not exactly what I meant, but an intriguing and constructive

alternative. We do have some common political goals, but is in the

professional arena that we diverge. But I think some of our political

goals diverge also. for instance, whether or not to have an entry

DAOM. The trick is to accomplish this without anyone selling out what

is really important to them.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi All, & Alon,

 

I wrote:

> Louis Pasteur, pioneer in bacteriology, is reputed to have said

> that the bacterium is nothing and the terrain everythingf

 

I checked Google: see " Le microbe n'est rien. Le terrain est tout. " . Louis

Pasteur.

http://www.hygiene-educ.com/fr/profs/ corporelle/sci_data/intro.htm

and

http://www.ateliersante.ch/bechamp.htm

 

Alon replied:

> And obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. One cannot

> dismiss the life saving effects of antibiotics and at the same

> time the exclusion of terrain as well as overuse must not be

> ignored.

 

Agreed.

 

TCM teaches to treat the Root & the Branch. Most WM-trained professionals

address acute or severe symptoms first, by whatever means are necessary

(including antibiotics for acute bacterial infections, analgesics for severe

pain,

etc).

 

But when one must deal with chronic or recurrent infections, for which other

professionals may have used several courses of antibiotics, one must then

consider the constitutional and Root treatments, maybe combining AP + herbs

+ other means to correct the root imbalance, or bolster the constitutional

weakness.

 

> The problem is that many start making clinical statement with

> little direct experience and with no valid evidence at all, just

> because they believe is sounds correct, makes sense, or just want

> to believe out of reaction to allopathic med. We must not fall

> into any of these traps and advocate our beliefs to those that are

> willing to look at them objectively. Statement of fact should only

> follow objective evaluation. Alon

 

Agreed. We must use whatever may be necessary, and be prepared to refer the

case to people more experienced, or more specialised, than we if we are not

getting good results soon.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "