Fwd: [rmhinet] Codex, supplements, and threats to health freedom

[Guest guest]

Wow Roger; that last sentence is very eloquent and frighteningly true.

I find your posts informative, refreshingly objective and intelligent.

I wish you all the best in your struggles to bring increased

credibility and accountability into the TCM arena in the US.

Individuals like yourself are the ones who will bring respect to our

profession, albeit " in the long run " .

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

On 05/07/2004, at 11:39 AM, rw2 wrote:

> ............My call for an international herbal certification is based

> on my belief that American TCM accrediting organizations have lost

> their credibility, just as many other American organizations have lost

> international credibility. America has become incompetent in many

> areas, and its influence in the world will only last as long as it can

> inflict its stupidity at the end of a gun.

>

>

> ---Roger Wicke, PhD,  TCM Clinical Herbalist

> contact:   www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

> Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

> Clinical herbology training programs -   www.rmhiherbal.org

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> >On Jul 2, 2004, at 10:06 PM, wrote:

> .............

> They have since reneged on this due to political pressure from those

> want to consolidate all power over this practice in the profession of

> acupuncture. the same kind of folks who had the term " chinese herbal

> medicine " reserved only for acupuncturists in a recent law in CA.

 

This would be amusing if it wasn't so terrifying.

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Jul 4, 2004, at 9:39 PM, rw2 wrote:

 

> If people on TCM accrediting committees can rebut any of my alleged

> facts and conclusions, fine. Let them do so. I look forward to having

> my arguments sharpened. So far the silence has been deafening. Until

> these people answer up publicly, identify themselves,

--

Ugh?! ACAOM list their commissioners and how to contact them at:

 

http://www.acaom.org/comm_staff.htm

 

At least in the states I am familiar with, state licensing boards also

list their membership.

 

Sorry, no secret committees here...

 

> and respond to these criticisms, we are justified in referring to them

> as these " same kind of folks " . How is this an ad hominem attack, if we

> cannot even identify any of these people by name, only as faceless

> committees? Questioning the validity of groups that make public policy

> and demanding explanations do not qualify as ad hominem attacks.

--

But, as noted above, they are identified. In any event, whether or not

they are, it would make no difference as to whether or not the form of's statement was ad hominem. His comment was clearly directed

against persons and not their statements or behaviors. That is ad

hominem by definition.

 

> By the way, several Chinese herb distributors have asked to see our

> course materials and have carefully questioned some of our graduates

> on making their first orders. I've sent these people copies of our

> course materials and curriculum. However, I will not pay tens of

> thousands of dollars, or more, to have the very agencies whose

> inadequacies I have documented evaluate my school.

--

And 'm certainly not suggesting you should do so. Its a voluntary

process. As you note, it costs quite a bit to go through the process.

In any event I'm not sure your school could be evaluated by ACAOM, as

it isn't an acupuncture program, and as it is primarily a distance

learning program (is that correct?). I think at this stage ACAOM has

not developed the criteria to accredit distance learning programs.

 

Like Will, I've been through the material your previous message linked

to, and I was unable to identify any specific criticisms of the

agencies in question.

 

> (Years ago I came to conclusions very similar to ones that independent

> and expensive accrediting consultants have come to - the need for more

> case-study based teaching, less rote memorization, homework based on

> working out problems, and exams that test ability to solve realistic

> clinical problems rather than simplistic multiple choice tests.)

--

It may be a surprise to you, but these methods that you advocate are

all in use in TCM programs I'm aware of. At least at the institution I

teach in, and at some others I have visited, the faculty are quite

concerned to develop effective teaching methods. For example, we have

on our faculty one of the primary developers of problem based medical

education at a major medical school. Our students enter clinic at the

beginning of their training, and thus their academics are always in the

context of clinical reality.

 

I agree with you about the need for higher standards and better

educational methods. There are programs out there of very questionable

value. But you seem to have formed your opinions based on a worst case

scenario, and without acknowledging some of the good things that are

happening.

 

However, there is possibly a misunderstanding of the role of the

accrediting agencies. ACAOM, for example, does not define teaching

methods, and schools have considerable freedom to set up their programs

as they feel best -- for example, see Seattle Institute of Oriental

Medicine. Schools have to define there own methods, and ACAOM looks to

see if the school is meeting its own self-definition, and that it is

evaluating its outcomes. As Will mentioned, the ACAOM site visitors are

independent practitioners and educators, and their job is to report to

ACAOM as peer reviewers, not as powers that be.

 

 

> I have better uses for these funds.

>

>

> I don't require the permission of any American TCM organization or

> bureaucracy to operate as a school of herbology, our graduates do not

> need anyone's permission to practice as an herbalists, so why should I

> endorse a process that seems to be more focused on professional turf

> battles than concern over quality of care to the public?

--

Nobody was asking for your endorsement Roger. Nobody was suggesting

that you seek anyone's permission to do anything. I completely agree

with you that if your students have no need of attending an accredited

institution, why put yourself through the agony. As your program is

directed at already licensed health professionals (that's what I

understand from your website, right?), there is probably little need. I

think that's what I tried to say previously.

 

> Until these accrediting agencies address, point for point, the

> criticisms I've documented, they have no credibility in my book.

--

Since both Will and I are having some difficulty identifying your

criticisms, perhaps you could give us a simple list of them.

 

> An independent, international certification body for Chinese

> herbology (private, consensual, non-mandatory), does not require the

> permission or approval of any exising TCM organizations.

--

Sounds like an interesting idea. Are you setting it up?

 

Rory