California Acupuncture Board Decreases Herb Portion of Exam

[Guest guest]

Dear friends and Jason,

 

I know that this mail will provoke several of you, but I can not refrain

from sending it.

 

I teach in a school of acupuncture, herbs and osteopathy in Norway, and the

results that the students have are quite good. I teach them to find the main

deficiency, mostly through pulse-diagnosis. Then they put one needle in one

of the command-points of that meridian, and they give one local herb for

that deficiency, for example Hypericum for a deficiency in HT or PC. This

method is very easy to learn, have good effects, is cheap (as we make the

tinctures by our selves from local plants) and very fast and understandable

to learn/teach. I have, earlier, mentioned this possibility for this list,

but have been told that this list is for TCM and oriental herbs, but why not

try this simple method?

 

When I started to do acupuncture, I used only 12 points (the Ting-points),

and had very good results. I mainly use just those 12 points still, and have

even better results adding just 12 herbs resembling those 12 points. Too

simple? Several colleges said that the results were because I was a gifted

healer, but several of my students also have those good results, as also my

wife.

 

 

 

Are Thoresen

 

Tinghaugveien 435, Gisleröd Gård,

 

N-3175 Ramnes, telefon 33397930

 

 

 

arethore are

 

 

 

http://www.sanare.no http://www.holistiskterapi.no

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

Fra:

På vegne av

Sendt: 26. juli 2009 01:39

Til:

Emne: RE: Re: California Acupuncture Board Decreases Herb Portion of

Exam

 

 

 

 

 

The problem I see is this. There may be a few gifted healers that can get

amazing results with limited amount of knowledge, but this is the exception

not the rule. I find that the majority of graduating students do not have

enough training to effectively practice herbs. Consequently, they do not get

the results they expect and end up doing less and less herbs over time,

replacing them with or other therapies. I am surrounded with graduating

students / practitioners and even the most gifted healers struggle with

herbs (and usually phase it out). One needs to study hard to get it (herbs)

even if they have a gift.

 

Training 'want to be clinicians' with a simplified curriculum is no

guarantee that they are going to get better or even equal results.

Furthermore I did find your comment funny, something along the lines of, we

can make a program for students that don't want to study hard. Hhmmm. I

wonder if a potential patient would think that the practitioners I want to

see is the one that didn't want to study hard.- Back to the music. Of

course there are a few gifted musicians that have no training and with

little practice can actually make decent music. However, being inundated in

the music world since birth, I can tell you that most of the time these

people just make noise. So it is all about the percentages. We need tp

maximize our graduates odds for success in treating disease. It is my

opinion that most people need structure and rigorous study. Otherwise I

would see herbalists everywhere that were rocking and that did not study, I

don't really see these people. Not to put down anyone, but maybe these type

of people are best suited for acupuncture. Just an idea.

 

So I completely disagree that one should be able to study as hard (or

little) as one wants and still be licensed to practice herbs. To me, this is

unethical. Herbs are hard and take time. Acting like one can learn a few

formulas and treat everything is IMO not very likely. But the point Eric I

think is missing is that yes there are great doctors that use 40-50

formulas, but they usually know many more formulas than that, and they know

how to modify these formulas for the individual. They use ideas from other

formulas (e.g. dui yaos). Or as in Taiwan will combine many formulas

together based on the individual. All of this on the surface may look easy,

but almost all of them have lots of study and experience behind them.

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Here are some ideas that have been put forth:

 

1. Separating the curriculum as they do in some schools already (3 years

acupuncture, 2 years herbology)

(the CA boards would have to change its format, since herbs and acupuncture

are tested together,

unlike the US National Boards.

 

2. Teaching the formulas and herbs along-side each other. Thereby

explaining each other as they are taught;

reinforcing relationships and explaining hierarchies inside of the formulas,

as well as describing indications

for herbs based on context.... for instance, chai hu has at least four

different functions depending on which

formula its in. Bu zhong yi qi tang... Long dan xie gan tang... Si ni

san... Xiao chai hu tang

 

3. Teaching the formulas in a historical progression (starting from the

Shang han za bing lun).

It would be helpful to have a text book in this case for formulas after

Zhang Zhong Jing.

 

All of these ideas would probably be more efficacious than the way that

formulas are generally taught now.

Of course, mulit-media and practical usage of the formulas and herbal

modifications are helpful.

In order to be treated like doctors, we need to put in the time and energy

and medical students study at least 12-16 hours / day for their big tests.

The struggle is of course how to get everyone on the same page.

Many people coming into TCM don't have degrees, there are no entry level

exams and

so...

 

Here are a couple of sites with free interactive TCM flashcards (hundreds of

TCM topics)

www.studystack.com

www.flashcardexchange.com

(type in acupuncture or chinese medicine)

 

 

K

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

>

>

> --- In

<%40>,

> " " wrote:

> >

> > The problem I see is this. There may be a few gifted healers that can get

> > amazing results with limited amount of knowledge, but this is the

> exception

> > not the rule.

>

> Jason, I agree with all of your points completely. I don't really think

> that someone with minimal training will ever be a good herbalist. The

> problem is, most of the people in a program just want to be acupuncturists,

> they don't have any ambitions to be herbalists and generally don't

> overextend themselves or bill themselves as herbal practitioners. Most of

> these practitioners know that their clinical limit and their interest

> doesn't go beyond xiao yao san, so they should not be filling the herbal

> classrooms and holding back the students that truly want to be herbalists.

> I'm not advocating lower educational standards for herbalists so much as I'm

> saying that the people that don't want to learn herbs should get out of the

> way of the students that have the potential to really do something with it.

>

> Eric

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

Turtle Island Integrative Health

 

 

TCM Review director

CA State Board Prep Courses

www.tcmreview.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

 

 

Ok. I see your point, I think I interpreted your intention incorrectly.

 

 

 

Anyway, I heard that our local school here (SWAC-Boulder) is actually

separating out two tracks, one acupuncture and one herbalist track. Is this

true? This does seem like a logical step, because a good percentage of new

patients that I see tell me that they have tried Chinese herbs and they

don't work. Upon inquiry, they usually received an oversimplified

prescription or two (e.g. xiao yao san patent) for their situation. I

fortunately can usually talk these patient's into trying a real

prescription. Note: this is not to say that sometimes XYS is not

appropriate.

 

 

 

Interestingly, there are a number of chiropractors now in my area who

prescribe Chinese herbal formulas. They tell the patient they have studied

some Chinese medicine, muscle test them, and give them XYS + LWDHW (or

something of that nature). Actually I just had a patient come to me and ask

me about those two formulas and if they were good because their chiropractor

gave these to them... my answer: they are great formulas... but not what I

would do.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Saturday, July 25, 2009 11:12 PM

 

Re: California Acupuncture Board Decreases Herb Portion of

Exam

 

 

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

>

> The problem I see is this. There may be a few gifted healers that can get

> amazing results with limited amount of knowledge, but this is the

exception

> not the rule.

 

Jason, I agree with all of your points completely. I don't really think that

someone with minimal training will ever be a good herbalist. The problem is,

most of the people in a program just want to be acupuncturists, they don't

have any ambitions to be herbalists and generally don't overextend

themselves or bill themselves as herbal practitioners. Most of these

practitioners know that their clinical limit and their interest doesn't go

beyond xiao yao san, so they should not be filling the herbal classrooms and

holding back the students that truly want to be herbalists. I'm not

advocating lower educational standards for herbalists so much as I'm saying

that the people that don't want to learn herbs should get out of the way of

the students that have the potential to really do something with it.

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Are,

 

 

 

I cannot speak for others but quite simply I do not think this method is

Chinese medicine. I am not denying it doesn't work for you or that your

students don't get great results. That is not the issue. There are plenty of

systems out there that get " great results. " You can talk to any tuning fork

practitioner and they will tell you they get great results -actually almost

everyone I talk to gets " great results. " - but should we teach tuning fork

protocols in school. IMHO, absolutely not. Actually I have found that some

of the best practitioners are the ones who often discuss how not great their

results may be at certain times.

 

 

 

It is just a matter of what one wants to learn and put their energy into.

Chinese medicine has the history, rigor, and systematic approach that many

of us like.

 

 

 

It might be helpful, though, to start writing up your cases and your

thinking behind the choices (people need a system to follow.) If you can

demonstrate over and over that you are making real changes in difficult

diseases, then I think people will be forced to listen. Furthermore it

important to demonstrate when things don't work, why it did not work, and

what one could have been done different.

 

 

 

I have no idea what your results are like and how you qualify them. But

often I see people with energetic training, simplified systems, computer

testing, or whatever, say that they have amazing results. However, a) they

are not booked out 4-6 months in advance-which they should be if the results

were as good as they say, b) they are gauging their results on the patient's

feedback, such as I feel better, but my chief complaint is still there.

Granted feeling better is a good thing, that should not be under estimated.

However, real changes marked by lab tests, questionnaires, etc. should not

be forgotten. However certain people put off an energy that prevents

patients from telling them the truth (for example your treatment did not

work, but since I like you, and you are trying so hard, I am going to

sugarcoat things), one should not forget this. I actually go out of my way

to make sure that this type of feedback happens.

 

 

 

As many of you may know, Boulder is a hotbed for alternative medicine. We

not only have the second most saturated population of acupuncturists in the

United States, we also have every sort of healing modality one can imagine.

However, I can only wonder, with all these amazing healing systems that can

cure anything very simply, why there are still so many people with basic

problems out there.

 

 

 

Patient psychology is very peculiar. I will see a new patient that has seen

a few of these practitioners and they will often tell me how great their

success was. How can one not wonder, why are they coming to see me? Many

times I ask them, and I get quite a few responses. Sometimes it is as simple

as well it only worked for a while. Fair enough, but quite simply I think

that people I have a hard time admitting that they spent time and money and

did not get any better. Now I am not suggesting that my practice or Chinese

medicine in general is any different, this is just a phenomenon I think we

need to all be more aware of. The one thing I am very clear on with my

patients, is prognosis, there is usually no easy quick road. Fortunately I

have found that Chinese medicine works, but the majority of the time it does

not lead to quick lasting results in difficult conditions. It takes time and

work, but maybe I am just missing the secret method.

 

 

 

What do others think about this interesting topic?

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Are Thoresen

Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:57 PM

 

California Acupuncture Board Decreases Herb Portion of Exam

 

 

 

 

 

Dear friends and Jason,

 

I know that this mail will provoke several of you, but I can not refrain

from sending it.

 

I teach in a school of acupuncture, herbs and osteopathy in Norway, and the

results that the students have are quite good. I teach them to find the main

deficiency, mostly through pulse-diagnosis. Then they put one needle in one

of the command-points of that meridian, and they give one local herb for

that deficiency, for example Hypericum for a deficiency in HT or PC. This

method is very easy to learn, have good effects, is cheap (as we make the

tinctures by our selves from local plants) and very fast and understandable

to learn/teach. I have, earlier, mentioned this possibility for this list,

but have been told that this list is for TCM and oriental herbs, but why not

try this simple method?

 

When I started to do acupuncture, I used only 12 points (the Ting-points),

and had very good results. I mainly use just those 12 points still, and have

even better results adding just 12 herbs resembling those 12 points. Too

simple? Several colleges said that the results were because I was a gifted

healer, but several of my students also have those good results, as also my

wife.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" Not to put down anyone, but maybe these type of people are best suited for

acupuncture. Just an idea. "

 

I've been saying for years that acupuncture and " herbs " are two different skill

sets, and, to be perfectly frank, I also believe acupuncture is easier to do

effectively. We jammed these two disciplines together, and now most L.Ac.s have

the legal right to do both (under the ironic heading " acupuncture " ). Since we

already have that legal right, what do you think about now going back and

telling students (and graduates) that they can and should pick one or the other

to " specialize " in? Fifteen years into my own practice, I stopped doing

acupuncture and only prescribed herbs. I felt I had gottn good enough at herbs

to make doubling up on therapies an unncessary expenditure in time and money for

my patients. Interestingly, once I stopped doing needles, my herbal medicine got

even better. I now was absolutely sure what worked and didn't work with another

therapy muddying my outcomes. therefore, when something didn't work, I knew

immediately where the problem lay that needed to be fixed (typically by more

thought and study).

 

What I'm saying (or perhaps asking), now that the legal right to do either or

both herbs and acupuncture has been secured (ast least in most states), maybe

the time is ripe for going back and saying to our profession, " You know, you

don't have to do both. In fact, if you want to get really good at either, pick

one and really stick to that. " Do you think this would fly with other members of

our profession? It's an interesting idea.

 

If this idea gained traction, our schools could design curricula to teach an

overview of both modalities as a basis but then go deeply into one or the other

depending the student's choice. For instance, when I did my B.A., the first year

we studied a bit of everything under the rubric of liberal arts. However, we

declared a major in our second year and, from that time onward, studied less of

everything else and progressively more and more of our major. By senior year,

most people were only taking classes in their major. If such a model were

applied to our entry-level schools, graduates would then take either the NNCAM

acupuncture or herb exam but not necessarily both. (Of course, there would alwys

be some people who would try to do both despite advice to the contrary.)

 

The problem I see with this is that, based on my interactions with students and

practitioners, there is a large group who see CM as nothing less than the

combination of acupuncture and herbs and want to have " the whole system. " I

think many people would see limiting oneslef to one or the other a step

backward. Perhaps we've been too good at our own propaganda. This was the

position of the BOD of the AAAOM at the infamous Chicago ciconvention that

caused such a rift in our profession.

 

So, has the pendulum swung far enough to begin swinging back in the opposite

direction?

[Guest guest]

I am working on such a course right now. I agree that an approach

like this would be very helpful.

 

 

On Jul 26, 2009, at 12:55 AM, wrote:

 

>

> 3. Teaching the formulas in a historical progression (starting from

> the

> Shang han za bing lun).

> It would be helpful to have a text book in this case for formulas

> after

> Zhang Zhong Jing.

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

I am with you 100% on this. My observations over a quarter

century have been just that, i.e., elevated claims of success with

several alternative therapies, but no proof to back it up. I assume

like myself you treat a lot of chronic disorders, and they take time

and a lot of work to get improvement on the part of both the

practitioner and patient.

 

I am aware of a few chiropractors in California who use a form of

'zone therapy', basically combining touch therapy on trigger points

with positive thinking and claim to heal serious diseases instantly

with such methods. I observed one touching these points while

suggesting psalms/tehillim to read on a patient with severe post-

operative back pain. When he was done with the session, he declared

the patient 'completely healed'.

 

I understand there are different gradations of success and

expectation in medicine, but I think we need to quickly distinguish

Chinese medicine from some of the more dubious techniques that are out

there. .

 

 

On Jul 26, 2009, at 7:15 AM, wrote:

 

> Are,

>

> I cannot speak for others but quite simply I do not think this

> method is

> Chinese medicine. I am not denying it doesn't work for you or that

> your

> students don't get great results. That is not the issue. There are

> plenty of

> systems out there that get " great results. " You can talk to any

> tuning fork

> practitioner and they will tell you they get great results -actually

> almost

> everyone I talk to gets " great results. " - but should we teach

> tuning fork

> protocols in school. IMHO, absolutely not. Actually I have found

> that some

> of the best practitioners are the ones who often discuss how not

> great their

> results may be at certain times.

>

> It is just a matter of what one wants to learn and put their energy

> into.

> Chinese medicine has the history, rigor, and systematic approach

> that many

> of us like.

>

> It might be helpful, though, to start writing up your cases and your

> thinking behind the choices (people need a system to follow.) If you

> can

> demonstrate over and over that you are making real changes in

> difficult

> diseases, then I think people will be forced to listen. Furthermore it

> important to demonstrate when things don't work, why it did not

> work, and

> what one could have been done different.

>

> I have no idea what your results are like and how you qualify them.

> But

> often I see people with energetic training, simplified systems,

> computer

> testing, or whatever, say that they have amazing results. However,

> a) they

> are not booked out 4-6 months in advance-which they should be if the

> results

> were as good as they say, b) they are gauging their results on the

> patient's

> feedback, such as I feel better, but my chief complaint is still

> there.

> Granted feeling better is a good thing, that should not be under

> estimated.

> However, real changes marked by lab tests, questionnaires, etc.

> should not

> be forgotten. However certain people put off an energy that prevents

> patients from telling them the truth (for example your treatment did

> not

> work, but since I like you, and you are trying so hard, I am going to

> sugarcoat things), one should not forget this. I actually go out of

> my way

> to make sure that this type of feedback happens.

>

> As many of you may know, Boulder is a hotbed for alternative

> medicine. We

> not only have the second most saturated population of acupuncturists

> in the

> United States, we also have every sort of healing modality one can

> imagine.

> However, I can only wonder, with all these amazing healing systems

> that can

> cure anything very simply, why there are still so many people with

> basic

> problems out there.

>

> Patient psychology is very peculiar. I will see a new patient that

> has seen

> a few of these practitioners and they will often tell me how great

> their

> success was. How can one not wonder, why are they coming to see me?

> Many

> times I ask them, and I get quite a few responses. Sometimes it is

> as simple

> as well it only worked for a while. Fair enough, but quite simply I

> think

> that people I have a hard time admitting that they spent time and

> money and

> did not get any better. Now I am not suggesting that my practice or

> Chinese

> medicine in general is any different, this is just a phenomenon I

> think we

> need to all be more aware of. The one thing I am very clear on with my

> patients, is prognosis, there is usually no easy quick road.

> Fortunately I

> have found that Chinese medicine works, but the majority of the time

> it does

> not lead to quick lasting results in difficult conditions. It takes

> time and

> work, but maybe I am just missing the secret method.

>

> What do others think about this interesting topic?

>

> -

>

>

> On Behalf Of Are Thoresen

> Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:57 PM

>

> California Acupuncture Board Decreases Herb Portion

> of Exam

>

> Dear friends and Jason,

>

> I know that this mail will provoke several of you, but I can not

> refrain

> from sending it.

>

> I teach in a school of acupuncture, herbs and osteopathy in Norway,

> and the

> results that the students have are quite good. I teach them to find

> the main

> deficiency, mostly through pulse-diagnosis. Then they put one needle

> in one

> of the command-points of that meridian, and they give one local herb

> for

> that deficiency, for example Hypericum for a deficiency in HT or PC.

> This

> method is very easy to learn, have good effects, is cheap (as we

> make the

> tinctures by our selves from local plants) and very fast and

> understandable

> to learn/teach. I have, earlier, mentioned this possibility for this

> list,

> but have been told that this list is for TCM and oriental herbs, but

> why not

> try this simple method?

>

> When I started to do acupuncture, I used only 12 points (the Ting-

> points),

> and had very good results. I mainly use just those 12 points still,

> and have

> even better results adding just 12 herbs resembling those 12 points.

> Too

> simple? Several colleges said that the results were because I was a

> gifted

> healer, but several of my students also have those good results, as

> also my

> wife.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Stephen,

A few weeks ago Bob Flaws mentioned something in one of his posts

with which I concur, that Chinese medicine is a 'system of thought'.

In my opinion, the biggest weakness in American CM education is the

inability to instill this system of thought in our students.

Memorizing data about herbs and points is essential, but it will not

lead to understanding the systematic algorithms that are necessary to

practice the medicine. This is the realm of diagnosis and prognosis.

I always am questioning my students on core concepts of Chinese

medicine and they are simply not being grasped correctly.

 

Living in the modern, post-industrial world, yin-yang thinking is

counter-intuitive. It has to be practiced constantly to get it

right. Most students and practitioners can grasp biomedical concepts

of disease easily, but have a much more difficult time grasping

Chinese medicine. Just looking at our various e-groups, it would seem

that most practitioners are stuck with treating only biomedically

diagnosed patients after the fact, and cannot reframe those diagnoses

into a Chinese medical pattern differentiation. One cannot develop an

independent primary care profession if the doctors of another medicine

pre-diagnose the patients and we accept that as the only 'facts' of

the case. It seems that Chinese pattern differentiation is more like

icing on the cake for most practitioners rather than the essential

core of diagnosis and treatment.

 

 

On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:50 PM, stephen woodley wrote:

 

>

> Interesting and important topic

>

> There are many, many challenges to teaching/learning this

> medicine in the West. Some of it falls on the schools, some on

> the teachers and some on the students.

>

> Jason said:

> One should never have the illusion that one just studies the

> material in the classes and then should be able to practice a

> high level medicine.

>

> I think that this touches on one of the " institutional "

> weaknesses that schools need to address. There is a huge

> disconnect between the didactic and practical portions of

> learning. This is apparent in the diagnosis, acupuncture and

> herbs.

> It's difficult to expect even great memorizers to retain

> information that is not applied for some indeterminate amount of

> time. The first formula we all learn is Ma Huang Tang....but many

> students NEVER use it...how, then, could we expect them to

> remember and understand?

> I think that this problem is complicated by the fact that most

> schools offer Tea Pills and many students rely on them more and

> more. How does a student develop a relationship with herbs when

> all they do is hand over a plastic bottle? At least with granules

> there could be modification which would require review of the

> formula on some level.

>

> I think that there is a valid argument for limiting the number of

> formulas. IF a student really and truly knows say, 100 formulas

> they create a model in their mind on how formulas are structured,

> work and are applied. From there, new formulas can be understood

> and assimilated fairly easily. If a teacher only gets 2 semesters

> with a student in the midst of studying theory, acupuncture and

> biomedicine, maybe the single most important achievement would be

> to inspire the student to love herbs and provide guidance on

> pursuit of greater learning.

> Still, without practical application our brain will de-prioritize

> that information that you haven't thought about much for the last

> 9 months.

>

> Stephen Woodley LAc

>

> --

> http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for

> free

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

I have heard you mention this for years, and I agree that this is a major

problem. This issue is a tough one to decide. In my own practice, I primarily

rely on herbs, with acupuncture as a backup. But there are many cases,

especially when there is local pain or emotional imbalances, where the

acupuncture is absolutely essential. While I rely on the herbs to do 90% of the

work, I wouldn't want to give up the ability to use acupuncture in the 10% of

cases where it is more important than the herbs.

 

I still think it would be worthwhile to allow students to study only

acupuncture, as long as they weren't allowed to prescribe herbs if they did so.

Then the herbal part of the education could be as rigorous as possible without

undermining the people who don't want to study it. In California, this would

require a complete re-writing of the acupuncture laws. Any time you do that, you

run the risk of introducing a whole new set of onerous restrictions.

 

One thing is for certain: the current educational system isn't working as well

as it should. We just need to watch out for a cure that is worse than the

disease if we mess with the current system.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

>

> " Not to put down anyone, but maybe these type of people are best suited for

acupuncture. Just an idea. "

>

> I've been saying for years that acupuncture and " herbs " are two different

skill sets, and, to be perfectly frank, I also believe acupuncture is easier to

do effectively. We jammed these two disciplines together, and now most L.Ac.s

have the legal right to do both (under the ironic heading " acupuncture " ). Since

we already have that legal right, what do you think about now going back and

telling students (and graduates) that they can and should pick one or the other

to " specialize " in? Fifteen years into my own practice, I stopped doing

acupuncture and only prescribed herbs. I felt I had gottn good enough at herbs

to make doubling up on therapies an unncessary expenditure in time and money for

my patients. Interestingly, once I stopped doing needles, my herbal medicine got

even better. I now was absolutely sure what worked and didn't work with another

therapy muddying my outcomes. therefore, when something didn't work, I knew

immediately where the problem lay that needed to be fixed (typically by more

thought and study).

>

> What I'm saying (or perhaps asking), now that the legal right to do either or

both herbs and acupuncture has been secured (ast least in most states), maybe

the time is ripe for going back and saying to our profession, " You know, you

don't have to do both. In fact, if you want to get really good at either, pick

one and really stick to that. " Do you think this would fly with other members of

our profession? It's an interesting idea.

>

> If this idea gained traction, our schools could design curricula to teach an

overview of both modalities as a basis but then go deeply into one or the other

depending the student's choice. For instance, when I did my B.A., the first year

we studied a bit of everything under the rubric of liberal arts. However, we

declared a major in our second year and, from that time onward, studied less of

everything else and progressively more and more of our major. By senior year,

most people were only taking classes in their major. If such a model were

applied to our entry-level schools, graduates would then take either the NNCAM

acupuncture or herb exam but not necessarily both. (Of course, there would alwys

be some people who would try to do both despite advice to the contrary.)

>

> The problem I see with this is that, based on my interactions with students

and practitioners, there is a large group who see CM as nothing less than the

combination of acupuncture and herbs and want to have " the whole system. " I

think many people would see limiting oneslef to one or the other a step

backward. Perhaps we've been too good at our own propaganda. This was the

position of the BOD of the AAAOM at the infamous Chicago ciconvention that

caused such a rift in our profession.

>

> So, has the pendulum swung far enough to begin swinging back in the opposite

direction?

>

[Guest guest]

Bill,

 

 

 

Yes the laws seem to be the issue, I think in Colorado one does not even

need a degree to practice herbology. Hence one could graduate with a

acupuncture degree and still practice herbs at an even very low level (than

previously) with mediocre courses they pick up on the side, just like many

chiropractors do.

 

 

 

- Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of bill_schoenbart

Sunday, July 26, 2009 10:14 AM

 

Re: California Acupuncture Board Decreases Herb Portion of

Exam

 

 

 

 

 

Bob,

 

I have heard you mention this for years, and I agree that this is a major

problem. This issue is a tough one to decide. In my own practice, I

primarily rely on herbs, with acupuncture as a backup. But there are many

cases, especially when there is local pain or emotional imbalances, where

the acupuncture is absolutely essential. While I rely on the herbs to do 90%

of the work, I wouldn't want to give up the ability to use acupuncture in

the 10% of cases where it is more important than the herbs.

 

I still think it would be worthwhile to allow students to study only

acupuncture, as long as they weren't allowed to prescribe herbs if they did

so. Then the herbal part of the education could be as rigorous as possible

without undermining the people who don't want to study it. In California,

this would require a complete re-writing of the acupuncture laws. Any time

you do that, you run the risk of introducing a whole new set of onerous

restrictions.

 

One thing is for certain: the current educational system isn't working as

well as it should. We just need to watch out for a cure that is worse than

the disease if we mess with the current system.

 

- Bill