Learning from Chiropractic marketing - Brian Tracey

[Guest guest]

Since my beginnings in this field in 95' I have seen at my school and at two

others a real concern for a replacement of traditional concepts with modern

WM language. I am a realist and know that we need understanding of WM in

order to communicate and survive but also think we are short-cutting our

methods and in the end maybe even our results. Acting as a clinical

supervisor has shown me that this tendency still continues. My suggestion

is that schools need more focus on both and also an integrated understanding

of what they each mean. Most OM/TCM students today lack the knowledge in WM

and CM to make a valid diganosis so they rely upon common knowledge to fill

in the gap. This means that they have some idea of diabetes or hypertension

are do to the media and make a one to one correlation with CM. This

tendency can be disasterous or ineffective. I hope you agree.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " "

>

>

>RE: Re: Learning from Chiropractic marketing - Brian Tracey

>Wed, 3 Aug 2005 06:09:43 -0600

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> > Wednesday, August 03, 2005 5:54 AM

> >

> > Re: Re: Learning from Chiropractic marketing - Brian

>Tracey

> >

> > I think I need to clarify my point. I was noticing a tendency of

> > grads/students to overly-rely upon WM to treat and seemed to be stuck if

> > someone does not have a WM illness. That was all. People are more than

> > just their WM illness and in fact, I beleive, that the illness is only a

> > part of who they are and useless without other info.

>

>Yes I clearly agree with this, some students DO NOT get it... So we seem to

>be on the same page... It seemed from your 1st msg. that you were against

>using western medicine disease names as a whole... But I see your point.

>In

>Boulder, though, most students (high %) and practitioners, at least that I

>know, are pretty with it and know how to differentiate using patterns...

>Maybe the tide is turning, or maybe it is just Boulder.

>

>-

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:03 PM

>

> RE: Re: Learning from Chiropractic marketing - Brian Tracey

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> >

> > I think that the Chinese generally have less conflict about

> > integrating CM and WM, but I think it is erroneous to think that

> > diseases like endometriosis have become a part of TCM itself. These

> > diseases are part of Chinese medical healthcare and are understood and

> > considered by all CM doctors, but there are many physicians who

> > continue to rely on traditional disease names and patterns when

> > determining therapy. Although the two medicines are often integrated

> > in clinical practice, they are still studied and practiced on their

> > own as well. Cancer and endometriosis are discussed and treated by

> > Chinese TCM doctors and are mentioned in integrated textbooks, but

> > these are not TCM disease names.

> >

>

> This is completely debatable; I have books that say otherwise...

>

> -

 

Once again to elaborate on my terse, before bed post.

 

There are of course a full spectrum of practitioner styles and beliefs.

There are CM purists (just traditional dx, i.e. only SHL), WM purists, and

all levels in between. But One cannot just consider the CM purists only CM.

CM has evolved and this is evidenced by the teachers I have had, a great

number of mainstream books (Chinese) that I own, the English language books

from Blue-Poppy that Western Medicine (or formerly so) disease names exist

in the realm of , and the many Chinese journal articles

coming out of the PRC. Integration is reality and if one studies CM in the

states or China (formerly) one will have this integration. Actually I

remember in my 2nd year of PCOM this was pointed out to me, specifically how

endometriosis is NOW a CM disease label. - So Chinese do teach otherwise.

 

But For some examples:

1) in the prized Wen Bing Xue (Warm Disease Theory) by renmin weisheng

chubanshe, there is a section on AIDS. - A teaching book!

2) In numerous case studies that are supposedly strictly CM, they will have

'Western' diseases and tests etc. One can open any numerous books of

'' disease etc. and find diseases which we think of as just

Western Medicine. An illustrative example is the section I translated from

a '' book, cirrhosis of the liver.

http://Chinese Medicine/Articles_Pract/cirrhosis.htm

 

Look through the info and you tell me if this looks like to

you... Actually if you did not see the disease heading it looks like any

other old-school disease. You can call it integrative or whatever, but

there is almost zero western medicine and it is a CM book.

 

Now one can surely find CM books that have zero western medicine. But it

only takes a few good sources from Chinese literature to disprove the theory

that Western Diseases are exclusive to WM and not CM.

 

Another example: All through school I always heard that Cheng Du had a very

strong Traditional root to it. So I d to the Journal of ChengDu

University of Traditional . That is TCM for all the folks

out there. Well one will see articles on Viral Myocarditis, Cirrhosis, &

endometriosis (vol.27, 2004, No.2) etc...

 

Therefore one can make some artificial black and white division, but CM is

much broader than some believe. Is Cancer now a disease

name, well I have a whole Book on cancer, which mentions about zero western

medicine. So I believe these diseases are so integrated that we need to

except this and move on... To say that Cancer or endometriosis is JUST not a

real CM disease is IMO just splitting hairs, and living in the past or some

contrived bubble...

 

My contention is this: CM is broad, it includes integrative medicine,

meaning WM and other ... Even TCM used by ChengDu supports this idea. Maybe

we need a special term for the purists, Like the RCM - (the REAL Chinese

Medicine) ... CM is an evolving force and constantly updated to give the

best health care possible. Why would it stay static?

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:01 AM

>

> RE: Re: Learning from Chiropractic marketing - Brian Tracey

>

> Since my beginnings in this field in 95' I have seen at my school and at

> two

> others a real concern for a replacement of traditional concepts with

> modern

> WM language. I am a realist and know that we need understanding of WM in

> order to communicate and survive but also think we are short-cutting our

> methods and in the end maybe even our results. Acting as a clinical

> supervisor has shown me that this tendency still continues. My suggestion

> is that schools need more focus on both and also an integrated

> understanding

> of what they each mean. Most OM/TCM students today lack the knowledge in

> WM

> and CM to make a valid diganosis so they rely upon common knowledge to

> fill

> in the gap. This means that they have some idea of diabetes or

> hypertension

> are do to the media and make a one to one correlation with CM. This

> tendency can be disasterous or ineffective. I hope you agree.

 

Mike,

 

I agree that we all need a better understanding... But I do not see this as

an issue with the CM material available nor the educational systems I have

been involved with. I.e. if one wants to actually research a disease like

diabetes then one has a whole book from Blue Poppy that is quite good to see

how to differentiate such a disease using western and . Such

an approach (Diabetes book) is by no means going to work in 100% of the

cases, but it is a great and valid start. But to make some generalized

correlation is just bad research on the student / practitioner and I

actually doubt the schools are teaching such a simplified approach (i.e.

Diabetes is just yin vacuity?? or something). (or are they??) I have heard

of many seminars / lectures on Diabetes that go into all the details. But

who can one blame, except the student's laziness? Actually I am unsure who

you are blaming or what the real point is anymore???

 

I am curious what school(s) are you referring to?

 

But I agree sometimes CM terminology is harder to grasp and many forgo this

for the easier tangible Western Medicine. I am a huge advocate of really

nailing down the CM stuff on its own, because this is the hardest.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

This ties into what I posted previously about WM terminology. While it is

not the existence or usage of WM terms that I find troubling it is the

over-reliance and limitations of them. Students in our OM programs do not

have enough knowledge in WM and barely in CM to make a good diagnosis, some

of you may not agree but that has been my observation.

 

I agree that integration is happening so why then are we not increasing our

programs to be more in alignment with those in China and require more WM.

Take a look at similar professions of chiropractice and naturopathy that

require a large amount of WM, not to limit their understanding but to

increase public utilization.

 

I am currently in a chiro program and have an undergrad in science and I

marvel at the amount of knowledge that could improve our abilities and

future. Our Asian brethren are way ahead of us in this area. We need

stronger programs in both WM and CM if we are to overcome the current

political woes.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " "

>

>

>RE: Re: Learning from Chiropractic marketing - Brian Tracey

>Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:01:11 -0600

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of

> > Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:03 PM

> >

> > RE: Re: Learning from Chiropractic marketing - Brian

>Tracey

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> > >

> > > I think that the Chinese generally have less conflict about

> > > integrating CM and WM, but I think it is erroneous to think that

> > > diseases like endometriosis have become a part of TCM itself. These

> > > diseases are part of Chinese medical healthcare and are understood and

> > > considered by all CM doctors, but there are many physicians who

> > > continue to rely on traditional disease names and patterns when

> > > determining therapy. Although the two medicines are often integrated

> > > in clinical practice, they are still studied and practiced on their

> > > own as well. Cancer and endometriosis are discussed and treated by

> > > Chinese TCM doctors and are mentioned in integrated textbooks, but

> > > these are not TCM disease names.

> > >

> >

> > This is completely debatable; I have books that say otherwise...

> >

> > -

>

>Once again to elaborate on my terse, before bed post.

>

>There are of course a full spectrum of practitioner styles and beliefs.

>There are CM purists (just traditional dx, i.e. only SHL), WM purists, and

>all levels in between. But One cannot just consider the CM purists only

>CM.

>CM has evolved and this is evidenced by the teachers I have had, a great

>number of mainstream books (Chinese) that I own, the English language books

>from Blue-Poppy that Western Medicine (or formerly so) disease names exist

>in the realm of , and the many Chinese journal articles

>coming out of the PRC. Integration is reality and if one studies CM in the

>states or China (formerly) one will have this integration. Actually I

>remember in my 2nd year of PCOM this was pointed out to me, specifically

>how

>endometriosis is NOW a CM disease label. - So Chinese do teach otherwise.

>

>But For some examples:

>1) in the prized Wen Bing Xue (Warm Disease Theory) by renmin weisheng

>chubanshe, there is a section on AIDS. - A teaching book!

>2) In numerous case studies that are supposedly strictly CM, they will have

>'Western' diseases and tests etc. One can open any numerous books of

>'' disease etc. and find diseases which we think of as just

>Western Medicine. An illustrative example is the section I translated from

>a '' book, cirrhosis of the liver.

>http://Chinese Medicine/Articles_Pract/cirrhosis.htm

>

>Look through the info and you tell me if this looks like

>to

>you... Actually if you did not see the disease heading it looks like any

>other old-school disease. You can call it integrative or whatever, but

>there is almost zero western medicine and it is a CM book.

>

>Now one can surely find CM books that have zero western medicine. But it

>only takes a few good sources from Chinese literature to disprove the

>theory

>that Western Diseases are exclusive to WM and not CM.

>

>Another example: All through school I always heard that Cheng Du had a very

>strong Traditional root to it. So I d to the Journal of ChengDu

>University of Traditional . That is TCM for all the folks

>out there. Well one will see articles on Viral Myocarditis, Cirrhosis, &

>endometriosis (vol.27, 2004, No.2) etc...

>

>Therefore one can make some artificial black and white division, but CM is

>much broader than some believe. Is Cancer now a disease

>name, well I have a whole Book on cancer, which mentions about zero western

>medicine. So I believe these diseases are so integrated that we need to

>except this and move on... To say that Cancer or endometriosis is JUST not

>a

>real CM disease is IMO just splitting hairs, and living in the past or some

>contrived bubble...

>

>My contention is this: CM is broad, it includes integrative medicine,

>meaning WM and other ... Even TCM used by ChengDu supports this idea.

>Maybe

>we need a special term for the purists, Like the RCM - (the REAL Chinese

>Medicine) ... CM is an evolving force and constantly updated to give the

>best health care possible. Why would it stay static?

>

>-

>

>

>

>