Guest guest Report post Posted March 13, 2006 I have been reading many posts on the TCMStudent list and am wondering about the difference of opinion regarding TCM vs. CCM. I am an RN and considering a career change to oriental medicine. As I am not well-versed in the intricacies between TCM and CCM, I am posting the following comments by TCM students about the differences between TCM and CCM. * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It’s because acupuncture in TCM is not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very simplistic and often inefficacious " * Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to learn that after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " . * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm school I should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo combo or when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a five phase point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how to apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to play a " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who are real people. The points are described by functions which are based on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao came to China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that other guy. I study all the classical material available to me and I can get better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture I'm not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point you are needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why a normal course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may not even get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a lawsuit against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham acupuncture.* ** *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at the same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the best school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some people like the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to go to a real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points are based on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other systems such as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to worry " one of 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are as classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio but hightly recommends Jung Tao school) * * I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because they are in depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am not intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like to know how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this has panned out in their practices. * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of energy; while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass. Since, a shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy, classical Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying energetic cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the branch(s) (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... " * I am strongly interested in herbs and a TCM program would seem to be a good fit. However, I am concerned re: the comments above that TCM acupuncture seems to be a " hit or miss " option with acpuncture points. After much research on the schools in this area (Southern California), I had decided on South Baylo. However, I have recently heard that there are some serious accreditation issues (ACAOM vs. NOMAA) and have been strongly advised to go to Emperor's or 5 Branches. Emperor's seems to have a very strong program but the commute would be an issue when combined with work and family responsibilities. There is another school in my area called Southern California University of Health Sciences (formerly LACC) that I am researching and if anyone has any information on this school, I would love to hear it. I very much appreciate any feedback members of this list would like to give...I am trying to find out as much information as I can before I pick a school to attend. Many thanks, Trish * * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 13, 2006 Tough choice Trish, I went to Southwest Acupuncture College in Albuquerque, NM and was really blessed to have some great exposure to CCM with my predominately TCM education. I also got some wonderful Japanese training as well. Purists from either camp will likely tell you that their side is the best. IMO, TCM is the way to go for herbs, and CCM or 5-Element is possibly the way to go for acupuncture although there are exceptions to both of these. It really depends on the schools and even the individual instructors within the schools. In my limited experience, TCM is so standardized that a TCM education is about the same (baring some exceptional professors) where-ever you go. Both herbs and acupuncture are really a life long study. The schools just prepare you enough to sit for the exams and get licensed. Then the real education begins, and then you can pick and choose where you want to go and what you want to focus on. Good luck! Christopher Vedeler L.Ac., C.Ht. Oasis Acupuncture http://www.oasisacupuncture.com 8233 N. Via Paseo del Norte Suite D-35 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Phone: (480) 991-3650 Fax: (480) 247-4472 Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of pippa258 Monday, March 13, 2006 11:32 AM Chinese Medicine TCM vs. CCM I have been reading many posts on the TCMStudent list and am wondering about the difference of opinion regarding TCM vs. CCM. I am an RN and considering a career change to oriental medicine. As I am not well-versed in the intricacies between TCM and CCM, I am posting the following comments by TCM students about the differences between TCM and CCM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 14, 2006 Trish, You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give my own insights into them. On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote: > > > * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese > herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It’s because acupuncture in > TCM is > not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine > theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very > simplistic and often inefficacious " Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e. 'herbal medicine'). TCM acupuncture is as 'authentic' as any other kind. It is hard to simplify such a complex topic, but modern TCM acupuncture is largely based on internal medicine principles (viscera- bowel pattern differentiation), to allow a practitioner to choose both herbal medicine and acupuncture treatment based on the same diagnosis at the same time. It also adapts methods developed by Li Dong-yuan during the Jin-Yuan dynasty (13th century). Classically, however, acupuncture and moxabustion were based on channel theory (jing-luo), and treatments and diagnoses were based on different criteria than internal medicine. So more classical acupuncture methods were based on such texts as the Nei Jing Su Wen Ling Shu and the Nan Jing, which also was the source for five phase theory applications in acupuncture as well. Many Japanese approaches to acupuncture/moxabustion are based on these texts. > * > > Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to learn > that > after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " . I think that is a great over-simplification indicating bias. I think that Japanese, five phase, and channel-based 'styles' of acupuncture are more focused on the medium of acupuncture/moxabustion itself, whereas TCM acupuncture is designed more for herbalists doing acupuncture. TCM itself is a modern synthesis and adaptation, but so are many Japanese acupuncture styles and the Worsley style of treatment. They are not 'pure'. > > * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm school I > should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any > textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo combo or > when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a five > phase > point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how to > apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to play a > " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who are > real people. The points are described by functions which are based > on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao > came to > China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that other > guy. > I study all the classical material available to me and I can get > better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture I'm > not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point > you are > needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why a > normal > course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may not > even > get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a lawsuit > against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham > acupuncture.* This is clearly very extreme. TCM acupuncture is the result of the attempt to develop a national medical system in China that could be taught by a standardized school cirriculum. But such oversimplifications of history are wrong-headed and slanderous. If China did not take these steps, all of Chinese medicine may have gone underground or disappeared. Remember, the Guomingdang (Nationalist government) almost banned Chinese medicine, just as Japan did at one point! However, in Japan, herbal medicine could only be practiced by M.D.'s until now. One can practice zang-fu pattern differentiation with acupuncture, so it is not a hit or miss proposition at all. I think judging the Chinese practice of acupuncture is foolish without sufficent data. It is a huge country with over 100,000 practitioners, many different treatment styles, clinics and hospitals. > > ** > > *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at the > same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the best > school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some people > like > the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to go > to a > real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points are > based > on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other systems > such > as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to worry " one of > 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are as > classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio but > hightly recommends Jung Tao school) Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not 'classical', they are modern adaptations. Ear acupuncture includes most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris during the 20th century. > * > * > > I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because they > are in > depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am not > intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like to > know > how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this has > panned > out in their practices. > > * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of energy; > while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass. Since, a > shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy, classical > Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying > energetic > cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the branch > (s) > (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... " The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false understanding of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only branches, and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness sakes, let's avoid dogma and deal with reality! > > Many thanks, > Trish > > * > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 14, 2006 Trish, I think Zev makes many good points and maybe taking an extreme a position might not be the best path. I think that Zev would agree that there is much to learn from the classical approaches and that many of these do not seem to be commonly taught in TCM programs. He also mentioned certain styles that tend to focus on acupuncture/moxibustion or the usage of the channels to assess and treat a person. It is good to realize what TCM is and what it is not, that way you are not misinformed. The most common program in US schools it based upon this post-communist era system which has sought to utilize an integrative medicine approach and puts focus upon herbs over acupuncture. In the states, we seem to have things in the reverse of what they are in China and license acupuncturists not herbalists. As an aside, we also see a lot of states with legislation that allows for focused training in acupuncture/moxibustion. As you had mentioned CA, your training will include herbs along with acupuncture, moxibustion and possibly tui na (Chinese medical massage) and tai chi/chi gong. There is a lot to learn here and any one of these can be a lifetime study. I hope this helps. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe >Chinese Medicine >Chinese Medicine >Re: TCM vs. CCM >Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:25:14 -0800 > >Trish, > You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give my >own insights into them. >On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote: > > > > > > > * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese > > herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It’s because acupuncture in > > TCM is > > not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine > > theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very > > simplistic and often inefficacious " > >Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine >over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical >texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows >that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e. >'herbal medicine'). TCM acupuncture is as 'authentic' as any other >kind. It is hard to simplify such a complex topic, but modern TCM >acupuncture is largely based on internal medicine principles (viscera- >bowel pattern differentiation), to allow a practitioner to choose >both herbal medicine and acupuncture treatment based on the same >diagnosis at the same time. It also adapts methods developed by Li >Dong-yuan during the Jin-Yuan dynasty (13th century). Classically, >however, acupuncture and moxabustion were based on channel theory >(jing-luo), and treatments and diagnoses were based on different >criteria than internal medicine. So more classical acupuncture >methods were based on such texts as the Nei Jing Su Wen Ling Shu and >the Nan Jing, which also was the source for five phase theory >applications in acupuncture as well. Many Japanese approaches to >acupuncture/moxabustion are based on these texts. > > * > > > > Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to learn > > that > > after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " . > >I think that is a great over-simplification indicating bias. I think >that Japanese, five phase, and channel-based 'styles' of acupuncture >are more focused on the medium of acupuncture/moxabustion itself, >whereas TCM acupuncture is designed more for herbalists doing >acupuncture. TCM itself is a modern synthesis and adaptation, but so >are many Japanese acupuncture styles and the Worsley style of >treatment. They are not 'pure'. > > > > * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm school I > > should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any > > textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo combo or > > when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a five > > phase > > point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how to > > apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to play a > > " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who are > > real people. The points are described by functions which are based > > on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao > > came to > > China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that other > > guy. > > I study all the classical material available to me and I can get > > better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture I'm > > not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point > > you are > > needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why a > > normal > > course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may not > > even > > get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a lawsuit > > against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham > > acupuncture.* > >This is clearly very extreme. TCM acupuncture is the result of the >attempt to develop a national medical system in China that could be >taught by a standardized school cirriculum. But such >oversimplifications of history are wrong-headed and slanderous. If >China did not take these steps, all of Chinese medicine may have gone >underground or disappeared. Remember, the Guomingdang (Nationalist >government) almost banned Chinese medicine, just as Japan did at one >point! However, in Japan, herbal medicine could only be practiced by >M.D.'s until now. > >One can practice zang-fu pattern differentiation with acupuncture, so >it is not a hit or miss proposition at all. I think judging the >Chinese practice of acupuncture is foolish without sufficent data. >It is a huge country with over 100,000 practitioners, many different >treatment styles, clinics and hospitals. > > > > ** > > > > *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at the > > same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the best > > school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some people > > like > > the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to go > > to a > > real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points are > > based > > on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other systems > > such > > as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to worry " one of > > 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are as > > classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio but > > hightly recommends Jung Tao school) > >Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not >'classical', they are modern adaptations. Ear acupuncture includes >most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a >modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris >during the 20th century. > > > > * > > * > > > > I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because they > > are in > > depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am not > > intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like to > > know > > how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this has > > panned > > out in their practices. > > > > * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of energy; > > while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass. Since, a > > shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy, classical > > Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying > > energetic > > cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the branch > > (s) > > (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... " > >The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false understanding >of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an >oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only branches, >and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both >root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning >thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness sakes, >let's avoid dogma and deal with reality! > > > > Many thanks, > > Trish > > > > * > > > > >Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times >http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > >Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click, >http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145 > > > and adjust >accordingly. > >Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group >requires prior permission from the author. > >Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely >necessary. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
