Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Doug is absolutely right. We do treat disease, let's be honest! (despite what the law currently says!) We don't live in an insular world. Isolationism may work in the short term, and we will definitely succeed in being able messengers to heal the millions who have been failed by the Western medical treatment paradigm and who come to us as a last resort, BUT, if we fail to articulate to legislators who have been brainwashed by the big money of the pharmaceutical companies, researchers, MDs and medical schools that to the belief that their paradigm is mainstream, reasonable, and ultimately (even if they don't have a cure yet!) efficacious, then we are doomed to repeat the fate that befell 19th century homeopaths and eclectic naturopaths: we will be regulated into a corner and ultimately be castrated and equated with massage therapists, maybe even having to work under MD's supervision. They want us out! We threaten their monopoly, even more than chiropractors, because we practice medicine, not just manipulation. Can't you see that!!! The only approach we can take for that nightmarish scenario to not enter into the realm of possibility requires the following: 1. Solid education in Western medical terminology. 2. Published research supporting the premise that we can successfully treat Western Medically named conditions that is disseminated to our community and is readily accessable. 3. Extensive opportunities and easy access for those of us who are unable to translate our terminology, whether in philosophy, diagnosis, or treatment into Western applications to be taught and reviewed how, so as to know what to explain when asked. 4. Moment to moment access to the latest Western medical developments, with our finest minds translating the information into Chinese medical language for us to consider our application of them. 5. BIG MONEY put into lobbying and lots of volunteer grassroots organizing to enable us to fight back and win ourselves a safe niche. To quote another inhabitant of LA, " Why can't we all just get along? " (Rodney King, Mar 1991). We are so disinfranchised with so many different feifdoms, while the medical establishment has only one thing going against it--our trump card: the growing number of dissatisfied and sick patients that they either created or are unable to resolve. If we survive the right way, then we win--because we are agents of healing where they fail. In the 60s they used to say, " dress British, think Yiddish. " We need to keep our integrity and not capitulate to the bio-medical paradigm that wants to swallow up acupuncture and herbal medicine, BUT, we also need to act smart, walk the walk and talk the talk if we are going to survive. Sincerely, Yehuda wrote: But this is where the crux of the issue with the FDA lies. If we indeed say we treat diseases then we need the proof that we do. Forget about us for a minute, if this wasn't required then everybody could make claims on treating diseases. It would be snake-oil redux. I would glad enough just to say we can treat in our own TCM medical vocabulary. doug , " " <zrosenbe wrote: > > I agree with most of the points you are making, except for the > statement " we should not have to hide behind TCM diagnosis jargon " . > The language of Chinese medicine contains the essence of the subject, > and your statement implies that only 'biomedical jargon' is real. > Yes we treat disease, largely through pattern differentiation, but > medical Chinese language and principles is what we base our practice > on primarily. We shouldn't discount it in any way. > > > On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Dr. W. W. Waldrope DOM AP wrote: > > > > > I believe that a STRONG, concerted effort on our part is necessary to > > assure the continued existence of TCM as we know it. We are doctors > > and we should say so. Our pharmacoepia is comprised of herbal > > medicines that treat disease and we should say so. We should not have > > to hide behind TCM diagnosis jargon in order to avoid notice. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Uh-oh. Although I enjoy greatly being absolutely right I'm not sure this is what the issue is about. This whole idea of " we treat patterns not diseases " is frought with problems. My point was that if we want to claim that we treat diseases then everyone alternative medicine will have the right to say the same thing. I don't think we have the ability or money to take that on. We will get subsumed into the AMA and destroyed before we will be allowed to treat disease. Dr. WWW's statement " We should not have to hide behind TCM diagnosis jargon in order to avoid notice. " is about our self-esteem. The problematic word is " jargon " to many, apparently. I would accept hiding behind TCM terminology. doug , wrote: > > Doug is absolutely right. We do treat disease, let's be honest! (despite what the law currently says!) We don't live in an insular world. Isolationism may work in the short term, and we will definitely succeed in being able messengers to heal the millions who have been failed by the Western medical treatment paradigm and who come to us as a last resort, BUT, if we fail to articulate to legislators who have been brainwashed by the big money of the pharmaceutical companies, researchers, MDs and medical schools that to the belief that their paradigm is mainstream, reasonable, and ultimately (even if they don't have a cure yet!) efficacious, then we are doomed to repeat the fate that befell 19th century homeopaths and eclectic naturopaths: we will be regulated into a corner and ultimately be castrated and equated with massage therapists, maybe even having to work under MD's supervision. They want us out! We threaten their monopoly, even more than > chiropractors, because we practice medicine, not just manipulation. Can't you see that!!! The only approach we can take for that nightmarish scenario to not enter into the realm of possibility requires the following: > > 1. Solid education in Western medical terminology. > 2. Published research supporting the premise that we can successfully treat Western Medically named conditions that is disseminated to our community and is readily accessable. > 3. Extensive opportunities and easy access for those of us who are unable to translate our terminology, whether in philosophy, diagnosis, or treatment into Western applications to be taught and reviewed how, so as to know what to explain when asked. > 4. Moment to moment access to the latest Western medical developments, with our finest minds translating the information into Chinese medical language for us to consider our application of them. > 5. BIG MONEY put into lobbying and lots of volunteer grassroots organizing to enable us to fight back and win ourselves a safe niche. > > To quote another inhabitant of LA, " Why can't we all just get along? " (Rodney King, > Mar 1991). We are so disinfranchised with so many different feifdoms, while the medical establishment has only one thing going against it--our trump card: the growing number of dissatisfied and sick patients that they either created or are unable to resolve. > > If we survive the right way, then we win--because we are agents of healing where they fail. > > In the 60s they used to say, " dress British, think Yiddish. " We need to keep our integrity and not capitulate to the bio-medical paradigm that wants to swallow up acupuncture and herbal medicine, BUT, we also need to act smart, walk the walk and talk the talk if we are going to survive. > > Sincerely, > > Yehuda > > > > wrote: > But this is where the crux of the issue with the FDA lies. If we indeed say we treat diseases > then we need the proof that we do. Forget about us for a minute, if this wasn't required > then everybody could make claims on treating diseases. It would be snake-oil redux. I > would glad enough just to say we can treat in our own TCM medical vocabulary. > > doug > > , " " <zrosenbe@> wrote: > > > > I agree with most of the points you are making, except for the > > statement " we should not have to hide behind TCM diagnosis jargon " . > > The language of Chinese medicine contains the essence of the subject, > > and your statement implies that only 'biomedical jargon' is real. > > Yes we treat disease, largely through pattern differentiation, but > > medical Chinese language and principles is what we base our practice > > on primarily. We shouldn't discount it in any way. > > > > > > On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Dr. W. W. Waldrope DOM AP wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe that a STRONG, concerted effort on our part is necessary to > > > assure the continued existence of TCM as we know it. We are doctors > > > and we should say so. Our pharmacoepia is comprised of herbal > > > medicines that treat disease and we should say so. We should not have > > > to hide behind TCM diagnosis jargon in order to avoid notice. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 I wish you could explain this to the schools - yehuda frischman Wednesday, May 02, 2007 7:12 PM " Why can't we all just get along? " Doug is absolutely right. We do treat disease, let's be honest! (despite what the law currently says!) We don't live in an insular world. Isolationism may work in the short term, and we will definitely succeed in being able messengers to heal the millions who have been failed by the Western medical treatment paradigm and who come to us as a last resort, BUT, if we fail to articulate to legislators who have been brainwashed by the big money of the pharmaceutical companies, researchers, MDs and medical schools that to the belief that their paradigm is mainstream, reasonable, and ultimately (even if they don't have a cure yet!) efficacious, then we are doomed to repeat the fate that befell 19th century homeopaths and eclectic naturopaths: we will be regulated into a corner and ultimately be castrated and equated with massage therapists, maybe even having to work under MD's supervision. They want us out! We threaten their monopoly, even more than chiropractors, because we practice medicine, not just manipulation. Can't you see that!!! The only approach we can take for that nightmarish scenario to not enter into the realm of possibility requires the following: 1. Solid education in Western medical terminology. 2. Published research supporting the premise that we can successfully treat Western Medically named conditions that is disseminated to our community and is readily accessable. 3. Extensive opportunities and easy access for those of us who are unable to translate our terminology, whether in philosophy, diagnosis, or treatment into Western applications to be taught and reviewed how, so as to know what to explain when asked. 4. Moment to moment access to the latest Western medical developments, with our finest minds translating the information into Chinese medical language for us to consider our application of them. 5. BIG MONEY put into lobbying and lots of volunteer grassroots organizing to enable us to fight back and win ourselves a safe niche. To quote another inhabitant of LA, " Why can't we all just get along? " (Rodney King, Mar 1991). We are so disinfranchised with so many different feifdoms, while the medical establishment has only one thing going against it--our trump card: the growing number of dissatisfied and sick patients that they either created or are unable to resolve. If we survive the right way, then we win--because we are agents of healing where they fail. In the 60s they used to say, " dress British, think Yiddish. " We need to keep our integrity and not capitulate to the bio-medical paradigm that wants to swallow up acupuncture and herbal medicine, BUT, we also need to act smart, walk the walk and talk the talk if we are going to survive. Sincerely, Yehuda wrote: But this is where the crux of the issue with the FDA lies. If we indeed say we treat diseases then we need the proof that we do. Forget about us for a minute, if this wasn't required then everybody could make claims on treating diseases. It would be snake-oil redux. I would glad enough just to say we can treat in our own TCM medical vocabulary. doug , " " <zrosenbe wrote: > > I agree with most of the points you are making, except for the > statement " we should not have to hide behind TCM diagnosis jargon " . > The language of Chinese medicine contains the essence of the subject, > and your statement implies that only 'biomedical jargon' is real. > Yes we treat disease, largely through pattern differentiation, but > medical Chinese language and principles is what we base our practice > on primarily. We shouldn't discount it in any way. > > > On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Dr. W. W. Waldrope DOM AP wrote: > > > > > I believe that a STRONG, concerted effort on our part is necessary to > > assure the continued existence of TCM as we know it. We are doctors > > and we should say so. Our pharmacoepia is comprised of herbal > > medicines that treat disease and we should say so. We should not have > > to hide behind TCM diagnosis jargon in order to avoid notice. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.