Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 All, > I am beginning to find this annoying. I've followed the " Teaching Western Doctors " thread, and the related threads about integration, here, now, elsewhere and for some time. I am aware that people's sense of what is right and what is wrong permeates these topics. Certainly, none can miss the " heat " between some list members. However, there is also a political and economic dimension that needs a thorough and objective look. First, don't we need to ask ourselves, " what can we usefully do about any of this? " Here is a real world example: Ted Kaptchuk and Kiiko Matsumoto teach doctors via David Eisenberg's facility at Harvard. If we think this is not so good, what should we do about it? Should we boycott their books, classes and lectures? Should we ignore what they have to say, attempt to embarass them as " turncoats " ? The fact that they offer their courses, among many others, means there is a market and that market will be served by someone. If we embarrass Ted and Kiiko out of the trade, will whomever takes their place be any better? The market for these classes exists because physicians perceive it to be valuable. What does that mean? Does it mean that there will be physician after physician doing bad acupuncture? Does it mean that there will be many more physicians speaking in favor of acupuncture? Does it mean (as I would guess) that the physician training market is driven by patient interest and the economics of managed care and that the market forces are complex enough to require a sophisticated response? How do we know? How do we decide? As for bad acupuncture, what do we really know? What percentage of these physician course-takers set-up general CM-related practices? What percentage increase their referrals? I cannot represent my personal experience as saying something about physician's skills, interests or motives in general. In my work I have probably spoken with more physicians seeking to learn something about than most. From my vantage point as a bookseller, there is no difference between specifically trained CM folk and physicians when it comes to looking for a " cookbook " solution. But, then, the fly-by-nights aren't buying books or looking for answers. Where do we go for some objective measure? How do we gather feedback for ourselves? As well, we cannot afford to be perceived as unprincipled. We selected PRC TCM and promote it as a licensing standard. We chose books that present a measurable level of TCM knowledge as a basis for curriculum. Yet, TCM in the PRC is neither exclusively one thing or another, nor is it static. Integration is not just a therapeutic viewpoint, it is a social and economic policy playing a significant role in the PRC's health care problems. Interaction with biomedical physicians is pervasive, as is their participation. There is a PRC integrated medicine textbook manuscript on my desk; it is many of the things people don't like about integrated medicine. Yet, it also offers more detailed descriptions of the TCM than books in common use. How do we say that it is a lesser good, if it is more thorough that what we demand? Practically, how do we know that promoting the " fully qualified general practitioner " model for physicians is in our best interest? Consider, for example, a hospital orthopedic ward where physicians supervise the use a set of integrated therapies for the half-dozen most common cases. If the CM-related treatments are " successful " as defined by patient-perceived criteria (pain, range of motion, etc) and/or as defined by the cost of care, what have we lost? Does this take patients away from the local private practitioners, or does it increase the market for their services? Does it harm patients from substandard care or is the integrated therapy superior to either therapy alone? Does it create a larger market for private practitioners through the approbation of the hospital and physicians? Who knows? I do not know the future, so I cannot tell anyone that their answer is better than any other's. However, I feel safe in saying that our relationships with physicians, medicine in society, and the economics of managed care, are so critical to our future that we should look for ways to answer these questions in open, shared and reasonably objective ways. Certainly, there must be enough common ground among those who disagree about the issue to arrive at statements that we can take to the public and to physicians in a positive way. Indeed, in my opinion, if the many practitioner, political and commercial orgnaizations in our field cannot find the common ground it takes to offer a postive approach to medicine in our own culture, that is probably a greater danger to the field than physician malefeasance. There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing drives a bad product out of the market as fast as a good product. Why should we leave this critical relationship to be described by anyone but ourselves? There are far too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast positions. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing drives a bad product out of the market as fast as a good product. Why should we leave this critical relationship to be described by anyone but ourselves? There are far too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast positions. Bob Dear Bob, Thank you for a most uplifting post. I most heartily agree. In the end it's what happens on behalf of Chinese medicine that matters. The point is for Chinese medicine to flourish regardless of who is the student, the teacher or the practitioner as long as each has credibility and integrity. Emmanuel Segmen Merritt College, Asia Natural Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 >> First, don't we need to ask ourselves, " what can we usefully do about any of this? " Here is a real world example: Ted Kaptchuk and Kiiko Matsumoto teach doctors via David Eisenberg's facility at Harvard. If we think this is not so good, what should we do about it? Should we boycott their books, classes and lectures? Should we ignore what they have to say, attempt to embarass them as " turncoats " ? The fact that they offer their courses, among many others, means there is a market and that market will be served by someone. If we embarrass Ted and Kiiko out of the trade, will whomever takes their place be any better? >> We don't even know what are they doing, how much are they thinking MD's need t know before they practice. I am not saying it is bad or that they should not be doing that. But if we need organize and know what is the direction being taking in this case. We need to know what they are teaching and what they think is necessary before MDs start to practice TCM or cookbook whatever under the acupuncture umbrella. >> The market for these classes exists because physicians perceive it to be valuable. What does that mean? Does it mean that there will be physician after physician doing bad acupuncture? Does it mean that there will be many more physicians speaking in favor of acupuncture? Does it mean (as I would guess) that the physician training market is driven by patient interest and the economics of managed care and that the market forces are complex enough to require a sophisticated response? How do we know? How do we decide? >> You have good questions, Acupuncture Organizations could answer these questions ,but they are interested in where the money will fall or politics in medicine in their favor. >>As for bad acupuncture, what do we really know? What percentage of these physician course-takers set-up general CM-related practices? What percentage increase their referrals? I cannot represent my personal experience as saying something about physician's skills, interests or motives in general. In my work I have probably spoken with more physicians seeking to learn something about than most. From my vantage point as a bookseller, there is no difference between specifically trained CM folk and physicians when it comes to looking for a " cookbook " solution. But, then, the fly-by-nights aren't buying books or looking for answers. Where do we go for some objective measure? How do we gather feedback for ourselves?>> The same goes for the question: When it will be clear enought that drugs are killing 150 thousand or more a year for the medical community and others around the health organizations to put a stop or more scrutiny in this drug presciptions ?? This drug related death has been going on for many years and no one is addressing, what make you think the qustions above will be answered ? I am not against your thinking, but I can tell is to liberal and we need more organization for this professional review. Question : When it will be done?? I think when we stop looking for where the Money will fall and think more about care. Vanessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 Robert wrote it: >>Practically, how do we know that promoting the " fully qualified general practitioner " model for physicians is in our best interest? Consider, for example, a hospital orthopedic ward where physicians supervise the use a set of integrated therapies for the half-dozen most common cases. If the CM-related treatments are " successful " as defined by patient-perceived criteria (pain, range of motion, etc) and/or as defined by the cost of care, what have we lost? Does this take patients away from the local private practitioners, or does it increase the market for their services? Does it harm patients from substandard care or is the integrated therapy superior to either therapy alone? Does it create a larger market for private practitioners through the approbation of the hospital and physicians? Who knows? >. I understand your point of view and I hope this happens. But I need to mention that a New York hospital has been using acupuncture (auriculo) for at least 12 years now with around 90% results in drug addiction cases, thousands going through it. But you don't see other hospitals using or following this protocol. Why they don't follow this amazing 90 percentage of results , natural therapy, great success for addiction cases?? I would say politics , not about care. If it was about care, hospitals would be using this protocol long time ago. I have a friend from Austria he is a master in treating migraines ( acupuncture), 90 to 100% results, not too many treatments and he can get the person very stablein around 6 txs garanteed . He approached a hospital and offer demonstrations about his treatments, natural , no much expenses and fast results. The hospital turn him down. He tried many times with many hospitals. I asked him why would you want to work in a hospital? He said there is so much people suffering with migraines in hospitals that he feels sorry and wants to help. So when will this common ground will be broken so Comprehensive Approach can be a main dish for patients in need??? When Politics stops. Vanessa Vanessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 I agree with this comment, but we need to understand somenthings need to be added it is not black and white. I myself am tired of the subject and I have many friends in the medical communicty and I know what goes on behind the cortin as in power ,politics and so on. I rather look into the TCM process for solution to many of the problems we face in clinical work, but we need to have open eys for the politics, behind the future of the medical ideas as in control. Vanessa Emmanuel Segmen <susegmen wrote: There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing drives a bad product out of the market as fast as a good product. Why should we leave this critical relationship to be described by anyone but ourselves? There are far too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast positions. Bob Dear Bob, Thank you for a most uplifting post. I most heartily agree. In the end it's what happens on behalf of Chinese medicine that matters. The point is for Chinese medicine to flourish regardless of who is the student, the teacher or the practitioner as long as each has credibility and integrity. Emmanuel Segmen Merritt College, Asia Natural Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Hi Bob from Paradigm Press Your comments are always so logical as it should be in any conversation. > First, don't we need to ask ourselves, " what can we usefully do about any > of > this? " Here is a real world example: Ted Kaptchuk and Kiiko Matsumoto > teach doctors via David Eisenberg's facility at Harvard. If we think this > is > not so good, what should we do about it? Should we boycott their books, > classes and lectures? Should we ignore what they have to say, attempt to > embarass them as " turncoats " ? The fact that they offer their courses, > among many others, means there is a market and that market will be served > by someone. If we embarrass Ted and Kiiko out of the trade, will whomever > takes their place be any better? What the turn-coats do..... can not be changed and there will always be people like them......but we don't have to like it, we don't have to sit by and allow what they do, prevent us from moving the profession forward. By moving 'qualified practitioners' into a status at the top of the feeding chain rather than anywhere from the middle to the bottom of it just so schools can stay in their mini-monopolistic businesses. We all know or should......when the real OMD degree (not a PhD) comes to the forefront soon....the majority of these schools might just be out-of-business. > > The market for these classes exists because physicians perceive it to be > valuable. What does that mean? Does it mean that there will be physician > after physician doing bad acupuncture? Does it mean that there will be > many more physicians speaking in favor of acupuncture? Does it mean (as I > would guess) that the physician training market is driven by patient > interest > and the economics of managed care and that the market forces are complex > enough to require a sophisticated response? How do we know? How do we > decide? You are right...who knows....yet we have a responsibility to set standards that are nationally and internationally recognized in the best interests of patients. No matter how some misconstrue the W.H.O. survey. It still stands that IF an MD or DO wishes to practice up to the level (notice it......up to the level) of qualified acupuncturists then the MD/DO must take at least 1,500 hours of didactic/clinical training and then take a REAL standard test. Why does everyone seem to avoid these researched standards reported by W.H.O. in 1996? > As for bad acupuncture, what do we really know? What percentage of these > physician course-takers set-up general CM-related practices? What > percentage increase their referrals? I cannot represent my personal > experience as saying something about physician's skills, interests or > motives > in general. In my work I have probably spoken with more physicians > seeking to learn something about than most. From my > vantage point as a bookseller, there is no difference between specifically > trained CM folk and physicians when it comes to looking for a " cookbook " > solution. But, then, the fly-by-nights aren't buying books or looking for > answers. Where do we go for some objective measure? How do we gather > feedback for ourselves? Cookbook is of value only when there is correct diagnosis...otherwise it is dangerous but you are right on target that it makes no difference whether they are APs or MDs. Is this even relevant on one level? > As well, we cannot afford to be perceived as unprincipled. We selected PRC > TCM and promote it as a licensing standard. We chose books that present a > measurable level of TCM knowledge as a basis for curriculum. Yet, TCM in > the PRC is neither exclusively one thing or another, nor is it static. > Integration is not just a therapeutic viewpoint, it is a social and economic > > policy playing a significant role in the PRC's health care problems. > Interaction with biomedical physicians is pervasive, as is their > participation. > There is a PRC integrated medicine textbook manuscript on my desk; it is > many of the things people don't like about integrated medicine. Yet, it > also > offers more detailed descriptions of the TCM than books in common use. > How do we say that it is a lesser good, if it is more thorough that what we > demand? > The model in China of all being well-trained or should I say...cross-trained and come out as MDs.....seems to be a model which maybe should be emulated. But what we have seen in the US is primarily of corrupting and co-opting rather than really trying to incorporate. > I do not know the future, so I cannot tell anyone that their answer is > better > than any other's. However, I feel safe in saying that our relationships > with > physicians, medicine in society, and the economics of managed care, are so > critical to our future that we should look for ways to answer these > questions > in open, shared and reasonably objective ways. Certainly, there must be > enough common ground among those who disagree about the issue to arrive > at statements that we can take to the public and to physicians in a positive > > way. Indeed, in my opinion, if the many practitioner, political and > commercial orgnaizations in our field cannot find the common ground it > takes to offer a postive approach to medicine in our own culture, that is > probably a greater danger to the field than physician malefeasance. Maybe and then again maybe-not. The physician model and paradigm that exists in terms of the control heirarchy is not conducive to agreements, common grounds, caring, or allowing another healthcare profession to exist without harassment. Ask Dr. Chester Wilk DC who was the point man when the Chiros went after the AMA. Ask him what happened after they let the AMA off easy on the $$$$ settlement when they could have gone after and been awarded treble damages, without bankrupting them which they pretty much had the ability to accomplish? Ask him if he had it to do again......what he would do. Does this mean that the averge MD out there is that way? Absolutely not....but the average MD does not run anything. Unfortunately the over-controlling organizations have been telling us too many polyanna stories over the years and too many have believed them which puts the profession at a great potential disadvantage. On one hand we can try to work together between ourselves and the allopathic paradigm/practitioners and on the other hand and at the same time we MUST keep a vigil and an over cautious attitude with those who slither in the ground for when they strike.....which could be at any time it will be all over and too late to do anything. > There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing drives a bad product > out of the market as fast as a good product. Why should we leave this > critical relationship to be described by anyone but ourselves? There are > far > too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast positions. > > Bob > bob Paradigm Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 > Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive > 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 I agree Bob............that's why there are places for certain people and forces to insure that all positions are covered. What I do.....covers one of those important positions. Many are not up to the 'full metal jacket' and that's just fine with me. I am not afraid of the threats for when one considers themselves and acts 'dead to this world' there is nothing that can be done to them. Regards, Richard Freiberg, OMD, NMD Founder/Director AOMNC <A HREF= " www.aomnc.com " >www.aomnc.com</A> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Anand That's a very important point......those certain allopaths manipulating and forging the attacks on all other healthcare providers are very good at dividing and conquering and for anyone to believe other about those few in is pure fantasy. Some scoff at the thought of conspiracy or racketeering but that's exactly what is going on only those who wish us not to see it.....would tell us bed time stories to keep us lulled to sleep. And why we might ask, are there colleagues who would play this kind of role....and the answer is that it all comes back to power and money. Some organizations have made a nice wind-fall profit to their business within the profession or around it and will do everything in their power to never lose that..... but as with all things....there is a time for birth, a time for life and a time (if not for death) certainly a time for change and that is what is resisted. I agree with you about looking to the future. All the previously trained should automatically be 'grand fathered' into whatever the newer requirements are..... Only certain factions resist that. Well said.....THIS is for the future and the patients. There are way too FEW practitioners both in the US and world wide. In the USA there is a mere 20,000. Anyone know accurate figures for other countries and worldwide? So what if a few real-acupuncturists slipped through the cracks who did not have every bit of education up to par. If we collectively working together supported our own profession by making that kind of collective INCLUSION there would be no in-fighting but you see.....there are organizations such as the schools and program accrediting agencies that don't wish to see this happen as it would upset their businesses. If all previously trained practitioners WOULD in fact stand together.....we could make this happen and then we could deal with the untrained. Richard > hi, > i think if only CM practitioners stuck together & did > not compromise on standards for anyone. what is > special about doctors that is not true of anyone. just > because one has a knowledge of the human body does not > make it any easier. rather i have trained from similar > background & i can tell you that its doubly hard. this > is so as i had to forget the past education rules & > think new. this took a long time. > now i can think differently as per my chopice. i am > sure all the allopaths are laughing at the way they > have broken our unity for some to gain publicity. > 2. if we had stuck together then all CM providers > would be trained. so the quality would be maintained. > let us remember that it was the CM trained people that > brought the profession into reput & not the other way > around. the doctors now want to latch on to the glory > & bask in it. > anand > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 hi, i think if only CM practitioners stuck together & did not compromise on standards for anyone. what is special about doctors that is not true of anyone. just because one has a knowledge of the human body does not make it any easier. rather i have trained from similar background & i can tell you that its doubly hard. this is so as i had to forget the past education rules & think new. this took a long time. now i can think differently as per my chopice. i am sure all the allopaths are laughing at the way they have broken our unity for some to gain publicity. 2. if we had stuck together then all CM providers would be trained. so the quality would be maintained. let us remember that it was the CM trained people that brought the profession into reput & not the other way around. the doctors now want to latch on to the glory & bask in it. anand --- " Robert L. Felt " <bob wrote: > All, > > > > I am beginning to find this annoying. > > I've followed the " Teaching Western Doctors " thread, > and the related > threads about integration, here, now, elsewhere and > for some time. I am > aware that people's sense of what is right and what > is wrong permeates these > topics. Certainly, none can miss the " heat " between > some list members. > However, there is also a political and economic > dimension that needs a > thorough and objective look. > > First, don't we need to ask ourselves, " what can we > usefully do about any of > this? " Here is a real world example: Ted Kaptchuk > and Kiiko Matsumoto > teach doctors via David Eisenberg's facility at > Harvard. If we think this is > not so good, what should we do about it? Should we > boycott their books, > classes and lectures? Should we ignore what they > have to say, attempt to > embarass them as " turncoats " ? The fact that they > offer their courses, > among many others, means there is a market and that > market will be served > by someone. If we embarrass Ted and Kiiko out of > the trade, will whomever > takes their place be any better? > > The market for these classes exists because > physicians perceive it to be > valuable. What does that mean? Does it mean that > there will be physician > after physician doing bad acupuncture? Does it mean > that there will be > many more physicians speaking in favor of > acupuncture? Does it mean (as I > would guess) that the physician training market is > driven by patient interest > and the economics of managed care and that the > market forces are complex > enough to require a sophisticated response? How do > we know? How do we > decide? > > As for bad acupuncture, what do we really know? > What percentage of these > physician course-takers set-up general CM-related > practices? What > percentage increase their referrals? I cannot > represent my personal > experience as saying something about physician's > skills, interests or motives > in general. In my work I have probably spoken with > more physicians > seeking to learn something about > than most. From my > vantage point as a bookseller, there is no > difference between specifically > trained CM folk and physicians when it comes to > looking for a " cookbook " > solution. But, then, the fly-by-nights aren't > buying books or looking for > answers. Where do we go for some objective measure? > How do we gather > feedback for ourselves? > > As well, we cannot afford to be perceived as > unprincipled. We selected PRC > TCM and promote it as a licensing standard. We > chose books that present a > measurable level of TCM knowledge as a basis for > curriculum. Yet, TCM in > the PRC is neither exclusively one thing or another, > nor is it static. > Integration is not just a therapeutic viewpoint, it > is a social and economic > policy playing a significant role in the PRC's > health care problems. > Interaction with biomedical physicians is pervasive, > as is their participation. > There is a PRC integrated medicine textbook > manuscript on my desk; it is > many of the things people don't like about > integrated medicine. Yet, it also > offers more detailed descriptions of the TCM than > books in common use. > How do we say that it is a lesser good, if it is > more thorough that what we > demand? > > Practically, how do we know that promoting the > " fully qualified general > practitioner " model for physicians is in our best > interest? Consider, for > example, a hospital orthopedic ward where physicians > supervise the use a > set of integrated therapies for the half-dozen most > common cases. If the > CM-related treatments are " successful " as defined by > patient-perceived > criteria (pain, range of motion, etc) and/or as > defined by the cost of care, > what have we lost? Does this take patients away > from the local private > practitioners, or does it increase the market for > their services? Does it > harm patients from substandard care or is the > integrated therapy superior > to either therapy alone? Does it create a larger > market for private > practitioners through the approbation of the > hospital and physicians? Who > knows? > > I do not know the future, so I cannot tell anyone > that their answer is better > than any other's. However, I feel safe in saying > that our relationships with > physicians, medicine in society, and the economics > of managed care, are so > critical to our future that we should look for ways > to answer these questions > in open, shared and reasonably objective ways. > Certainly, there must be > enough common ground among those who disagree about > the issue to arrive > at statements that we can take to the public and to > physicians in a positive > way. Indeed, in my opinion, if the many > practitioner, political and > commercial orgnaizations in our field cannot find > the common ground it > takes to offer a postive approach to medicine in our > own culture, that is > probably a greater danger to the field than > physician malefeasance. > > There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing > drives a bad product > out of the market as fast as a good product. Why > should we leave this > critical relationship to be described by anyone but > ourselves? There are far > too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast > positions. > > Bob > > > > bob Paradigm > Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. > Box 1037 > Robert L. Felt > 202 Bendix Drive > 505 758 7758 > Taos, New Mexico 87571 > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville 0402 472 897 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Dear Vanessa > <<I need to mention that a New York hospital has been using acupuncture > (auriculo) for at least 12 years now with around 90% results in drug addiction > cases, thousands going through it. > But you don't see other hospitals using or following this protocol. > Why they don't follow this amazing 90 percentage of results , natural > therapy, great success for addiction cases?? > I would say politics , not about care. If it was about care, hospitals > would be using this protocol long time ago.>> Politics of control and BIG money. Just think how much money will be lost from the allopathic system when AP/OM is allowed as a stand-alone collaborative health system? I have worked the numbers in just one tiny area called Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and as close as I can get......TCM can save close to $20 Billion dollars of approximately $24 Billion spent annually in the US and as I said before - THAT os only one myo/osteo fascial 'crush' syndrome. Just imagine all of the myofascial/osteofascial pain syndromes. Now thats BIG money which the system lose while our fellow humans would suffer less. Which is more important and to whom? > > I have a friend from Austria he is a master in treating migraines ( > acupuncture), 90 to 100% results, not too many treatments and he can get the person > very stablein around 6 txs garanteed . > > He approached a hospital and offer demonstrations about his treatments, > natural , no much expenses and fast results. The hospital turn him down. He > tried many times with many hospitals. > > I asked him why would you want to work in a hospital? He said there is so > much people suffering with migraines in hospitals that he feels sorry and wants > to help. > > So when will this common ground will be broken so Comprehensive Approach can > be a main dish for patients in need??? When it is FORCED to happen by hopefully uncorrupted courts and judges. So far there has been no other approach that has worked. We have seen it time and time again as with earlier in the 1900's when allopaths pushed out Naturopaths....in the 1950's and forward when they went after the Chiropractors and were caught 'red-handed' and still those controlling interests continue...until such a time as they are stopped. That's just the raw facts. No opinions. All one has to do is be willing to LOOK at the history and instead of just wanting to be nice.......we must attempt to make it happen because it won't on it's own. Some might say...militant or hawkish...and maybe that's true and I sure wish it would be otherwise but it doesn't appear to be and for those who are still saying...'oh but why can;t we get along'?....the answer is that those in power DO NOT wish to get along. As with terrorists....one cannot negotiate with them. The only way it stops is when the they stop. Voluntarily that doesn't seem to be in the cards unless some miracle occurs which is a possibility. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 i think we as TCM people have to wake up to the fact that considering the above figures let us dissect them. 1. the hospital had 90% results but the other hospitals did not follow suit. 2. migraines can be cured. but hospitals do not wish to know about it. 3. inspite of hospital treating 90% people with good results how many patients actually came over to TCM practitioners who were practising in the same town. i am sure not too many. they preferred or were made to go or referred to a medical doctor doing acupuncture because they believe in keeping aclosed shop under the guise of quality of care & safety to patients. always the same story. anand --- <vbirang wrote: > Robert wrote it: > > >>Practically, how do we know that promoting the > " fully qualified general > practitioner " model for physicians is in our best > interest? Consider, for > example, a hospital orthopedic ward where physicians > supervise the use a > set of integrated therapies for the half-dozen most > common cases. If the > CM-related treatments are " successful " as defined by > patient-perceived > criteria (pain, range of motion, etc) and/or as > defined by the cost of care, > what have we lost? Does this take patients away > from the local private > practitioners, or does it increase the market for > their services? Does it > harm patients from substandard care or is the > integrated therapy superior > to either therapy alone? Does it create a larger > market for private > practitioners through the approbation of the > hospital and physicians? Who > knows? >. > I understand your point of view and I hope this > happens. But I need to mention that a New York > hospital has been using acupuncture (auriculo) for > at least 12 years now with around 90% results in > drug addiction cases, thousands going through it. > > But you don't see other hospitals using or following > this protocol. > > Why they don't follow this amazing 90 percentage of > results , natural therapy, great success for > addiction cases?? > > I would say politics , not about care. If it was > about care, hospitals would be using this protocol > long time ago. > > I have a friend from Austria he is a master in > treating migraines ( acupuncture), 90 to 100% > results, not too many treatments and he can get the > person very stablein around 6 txs garanteed . > > He approached a hospital and offer demonstrations > about his treatments, natural , no much expenses > and fast results. The hospital turn him down. He > tried many times with many hospitals. > > I asked him why would you want to work in a > hospital? He said there is so much people suffering > with migraines in hospitals that he feels sorry and > wants to help. > > So when will this common ground will be broken so > Comprehensive Approach can be a main dish for > patients in need??? > > When Politics stops. > > Vanessa > > > > Vanessa > > > > > > SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site > design software > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville 0402 472 897 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Let's move to something we can and all should support. This is a newly posted proactive addition to the AOMNC website if anyone cares to look at the mission statement. Richard <A HREF= " www.aomnc.com " >www.aomnc.com</A> Improving the National Health Information Infrastructure (NHII) and Standards for Health-Related Data Draft Resolution September 3, 2003 WHEREAS, the American people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, through the exercise of the individual freedom in a manner that does not infringe on the freedoms of others, and these rights are applicable to their pursuit of wellness and healthcare; WHEREAS, the federal government has committed to supporting these freedoms through the application of information and communications technologies to the health industry that have supported greater consumer choice and wealth-generating efficiencies in other industries; WHEREAS, a cost-effective national health information infrastructure, free of special interest influence and control, is needed to: 1) compile, analyze and disseminate health-advancing information from all health industry stakeholders, including public and private, community, minority and ethnic, and faith-based organizations, 2) provide impartial information on best practices to health, healthcare, and health policy decision makers, and 3) help the greatest number of people exercise their individual freedoms and get the right care in the right place at the right time, at the lowest possible cost; WHEREAS, the federal government is supporting a public-private collaboration to develop impartial standards for health-related data to: 1) support an optimal information architecture, 2) align financial and other incentives of consumers, caregivers and organizations (e.g., through tax-benefits for achievement of targeted health improvements), 3) enhance health surveillance to support homeland security, 4) support research and population health, 5) enhance safety and quality, and 6) help protect privacy and confidentiality; WHEREAS, the building blocks of an effective health information infrastructure are currently incomplete and flawed, and compromise the nation's ability to: 1) identify public health risks (such as bioterrorism and viral epidemics), 2) avoid individual health risks (such as medical errors and adverse reactions), 3) reverse disparities in health based on income, race and ethnicity, 4) make comparisons of economic and health outcomes of conventional, complementary and alternative approaches to care, to identify the best practices available, 5) improve healthcare accessibility, quality and cost-management, and 6) support better health policy decisions; WHEREAS, the federal government committed to specific improvement in the health information infrastructure for administrative simplification, including standardization of transactions and code sets under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA); WHEREAS, complete, accurate and precise clinical and administrative codes are essential to: 1) support healthcare research, management, and commerce; 2) help those who finance, administer, and deliver care make better decisions; and 3) give consumers reliable information on the cost and benefits of care and greater freedom to secure the care they prefer; WHEREAS, the HIPAA code sets are oriented toward conventional physician-directed and dentist-directed disease-based models of care, and the HIPAA code set evaluation and naming process is dominated by conventional allopathic practitioners who could benefit financially from the restriction of standards for health-related data to allopathic approaches to care; WHEREAS, new codes are needed to reflect alternative medicine, nursing and other forms of integrative healthcare (such as the approaches to wellness and healing taken on behalf of impoverished, minority and ethnic populations). WHEREAS, older code sets are designed, developed and overseen in a manner that facilitates special interest control over the financing, administration and delivery of care by practitioners in healthcare professions other than their own; WHEREAS, complete, accurate and precise codes will help health, healthcare and health policy decision makers to: 1) more easily identify the least costly and most beneficial interventions, 2) support the exercise of individual freedoms in relation to wellness and healthcare, and 3) get the greatest number of people the right care in the right place at the right time, at the lowest possible cost; WHEREAS, incomplete and flawed standards within the national health information infrastructure result in systemic inefficiencies and dependencies that block access to quality care, raise the cost of care, and lead American workers to choose employment on the basis of health coverage rather than their potential to contribute productively to the economy, to the detriment of national socioeconomic development; BE IT RESOLVED, that we urge the federal government to pass regulations or law to ensure the nation's clinical and administrative codes are developed and managed in an open and impartial manner that 1) precludes special interests from withholding or assigning codes in a manner that restricts competition or limits consumer choice; 2) supports scientific assessments of the relative economic and health outcomes of integrative healthcare, as well as complementary and alternative approaches to physician-directed, dentist-directed and other disease-based models of care; and 3) supports the collection, analysis, and dissemination of health-related data, information and knowledge on all facets of wellness and healthcare to support wellness and improve individual and public health, business, and industry efficiencies, and socioeconomic development; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge 1) federal and state governments to explore immediate remedies to national health information infrastructure challenges that compromise the rights of Americans, in order to empower them to control their healthcare expenditures and choose the care that is best for them; 2) federal and state governments to initiate a criminal investigation into the business practices of organizations whose members are enriched by disease, to explore and counter the possibility of systemic and institutionalized perpetuation of disease, restraint of trade, anti-trust and/or racketeering practices (e.g., control of data collection, coverage and reimbursement, pricing, licensing, scope of practice and case management); and 3) the state attorney generals and U.S. employers to jointly explore the potential for a lawsuit against the federal government for having supported any statutory monopolies by the conventional allopathic profession that limits competition in healthcare to: " the financial detriment of the states and U.S. employers and " the detriment of the health and rights of the American people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 In a message dated 9/3/2003 1:52:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nfc writes: > > Amen Richard.. > Double Amen..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Well, but if you look at the reality, this is not always true. Whoever controls distribution controls what product gets out there, even if it is a lesser product. The control of information affects what is perceived to be better, too. Sometimes the effort involved in shifting from one way of doing things to another way is perceived to be too great, i.e., too expensive. Sometimes the ones at the top, who control the ultimate output, have fixed ideas that won't budge, even in the face of massive contrary evidence (viz., global warming). This can be seen everywhere, from bad movies to gas-guzzling cars to medicine in this country. It is sometimes only when a product can bypass this entrenched system or is supported elsewhere (for example, by government or private subsidy or grassroots action), that the better can prevail. So it is indeed important to take control of, or at least participate in, the " defining " movement before it gets done for us, by those who might prefer our work to be considered " lesser. " Pat There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing drives a bad product out of the market as fast as a good product. Why should we leave this critical relationship to be described by anyone but ourselves? There are far too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast positions. Bob Dear Bob, Thank you for a most uplifting post. I most heartily agree. In the end it's what happens on behalf of Chinese medicine that matters. The point is for Chinese medicine to flourish regardless of who is the student, the teacher or the practitioner as long as each has credibility and integrity. Emmanuel Segmen Merritt College, Asia Natural ============================================================================== NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. ============================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Amen Richard.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Good point. Vanessa >> Pat Ethridge <pat.ethridge wrote: Well, but if you look at the reality, this is not always true. Whoever controls distribution controls what product gets out there, even if it is a lesser product. The control of information affects what is perceived to be better, too. Sometimes the effort involved in shifting from one way of doing things to another way is perceived to be too great, i.e., too expensive. Sometimes the ones at the top, who control the ultimate output, have fixed ideas that won't budge, even in the face of massive contrary evidence (viz., global warming). This can be seen everywhere, from bad movies to gas-guzzling cars to medicine in this country. It is sometimes only when a product can bypass this entrenched system or is supported elsewhere (for example, by government or private subsidy or grassroots action), that the better can prevail. So it is indeed important to take control of, or at least participate in, the " defining " movement before it gets done for us, by those who might prefer our work to be considered " lesser. " Pat There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing drives a bad product out of the market as fast as a good product. Why should we leave this critical relationship to be described by anyone but ourselves? There are far too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast positions. Bob Dear Bob, Thank you for a most uplifting post. I most heartily agree. In the end it's what happens on behalf of Chinese medicine that matters. The point is for Chinese medicine to flourish regardless of who is the student, the teacher or the practitioner as long as each has credibility and integrity. Emmanuel Segmen Merritt College, Asia Natural ============================================================================== NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. ============================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Hello Richard I know this subject is tiring and sad at the same time. But I am amazed that many in the group can't see the politics or the misrepresentation of CARE by the western docs community, including the Pharmaceutical CO. I admire your guts to say what needs to be said so maybe we can wake up to the reality and organize the future of TCM/and alternative medicine in general. Vanessa acudoc11 wrote: Dear Vanessa > <<I need to mention that a New York hospital has been using acupuncture > (auriculo) for at least 12 years now with around 90% results in drug addiction > cases, thousands going through it. > But you don't see other hospitals using or following this protocol. > Why they don't follow this amazing 90 percentage of results , natural > therapy, great success for addiction cases?? > I would say politics , not about care. If it was about care, hospitals > would be using this protocol long time ago.>> Politics of control and BIG money. Just think how much money will be lost from the allopathic system when AP/OM is allowed as a stand-alone collaborative health system? I have worked the numbers in just one tiny area called Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and as close as I can get......TCM can save close to $20 Billion dollars of approximately $24 Billion spent annually in the US and as I said before - THAT os only one myo/osteo fascial 'crush' syndrome. Just imagine all of the myofascial/osteofascial pain syndromes. Now thats BIG money which the system lose while our fellow humans would suffer less. Which is more important and to whom? > > I have a friend from Austria he is a master in treating migraines ( > acupuncture), 90 to 100% results, not too many treatments and he can get the person > very stablein around 6 txs garanteed . > > He approached a hospital and offer demonstrations about his treatments, > natural , no much expenses and fast results. The hospital turn him down. He > tried many times with many hospitals. > > I asked him why would you want to work in a hospital? He said there is so > much people suffering with migraines in hospitals that he feels sorry and wants > to help. > > So when will this common ground will be broken so Comprehensive Approach can > be a main dish for patients in need??? When it is FORCED to happen by hopefully uncorrupted courts and judges. So far there has been no other approach that has worked. We have seen it time and time again as with earlier in the 1900's when allopaths pushed out Naturopaths....in the 1950's and forward when they went after the Chiropractors and were caught 'red-handed' and still those controlling interests continue...until such a time as they are stopped. That's just the raw facts. No opinions. All one has to do is be willing to LOOK at the history and instead of just wanting to be nice.......we must attempt to make it happen because it won't on it's own. Some might say...militant or hawkish...and maybe that's true and I sure wish it would be otherwise but it doesn't appear to be and for those who are still saying...'oh but why can;t we get along'?....the answer is that those in power DO NOT wish to get along. As with terrorists....one cannot negotiate with them. The only way it stops is when the they stop. Voluntarily that doesn't seem to be in the cards unless some miracle occurs which is a possibility. Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Anad I need to clear somenthing here; The docotr in that hospital is Michael a nice guy that you cannot beoieve he treats anyone that comes in paid or not, he doesn't care. MAjority of the patients are treated by licensed acupuncturist taught by Michael . This hospital with this docotr are the best in this specialization as addiction for almost anything. That is why there is an enourmous amount of people going there, and they are very lucky I have to say.(90% results, I would go there myslef). My point is that other hospitals are not interested, no curiosity in the amount of result percentage for some reason. My question is: If it is about CARE for the patients why not have more of this type of procedure in their hospitals all over the country for the benefit of the addiction patients ?? POLITICS to say the least. Vanessa anand bapat <acubapat wrote: i think we as TCM people have to wake up to the fact that considering the above figures let us dissect them. 1. the hospital had 90% results but the other hospitals did not follow suit. 2. migraines can be cured. but hospitals do not wish to know about it. 3. inspite of hospital treating 90% people with good results how many patients actually came over to TCM practitioners who were practising in the same town. i am sure not too many. they preferred or were made to go or referred to a medical doctor doing acupuncture because they believe in keeping aclosed shop under the guise of quality of care & safety to patients. always the same story. anand --- <vbirang wrote: > Robert wrote it: > > >>Practically, how do we know that promoting the > " fully qualified general > practitioner " model for physicians is in our best > interest? Consider, for > example, a hospital orthopedic ward where physicians > supervise the use a > set of integrated therapies for the half-dozen most > common cases. If the > CM-related treatments are " successful " as defined by > patient-perceived > criteria (pain, range of motion, etc) and/or as > defined by the cost of care, > what have we lost? Does this take patients away > from the local private > practitioners, or does it increase the market for > their services? Does it > harm patients from substandard care or is the > integrated therapy superior > to either therapy alone? Does it create a larger > market for private > practitioners through the approbation of the > hospital and physicians? Who > knows? >. > I understand your point of view and I hope this > happens. But I need to mention that a New York > hospital has been using acupuncture (auriculo) for > at least 12 years now with around 90% results in > drug addiction cases, thousands going through it. > > But you don't see other hospitals using or following > this protocol. > > Why they don't follow this amazing 90 percentage of > results , natural therapy, great success for > addiction cases?? > > I would say politics , not about care. If it was > about care, hospitals would be using this protocol > long time ago. > > I have a friend from Austria he is a master in > treating migraines ( acupuncture), 90 to 100% > results, not too many treatments and he can get the > person very stablein around 6 txs garanteed . > > He approached a hospital and offer demonstrations > about his treatments, natural , no much expenses > and fast results. The hospital turn him down. He > tried many times with many hospitals. > > I asked him why would you want to work in a > hospital? He said there is so much people suffering > with migraines in hospitals that he feels sorry and > wants to help. > > So when will this common ground will be broken so > Comprehensive Approach can be a main dish for > patients in need??? > > When Politics stops. > > Vanessa > > > > Vanessa > > > > > > SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site > design software > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville 0402 472 897 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Good points. Vanessa >> anand bapat <acubapat wrote: hi, i think if only CM practitioners stuck together & did not compromise on standards for anyone. what is special about doctors that is not true of anyone. just because one has a knowledge of the human body does not make it any easier. rather i have trained from similar background & i can tell you that its doubly hard. this is so as i had to forget the past education rules & think new. this took a long time. now i can think differently as per my chopice. i am sure all the allopaths are laughing at the way they have broken our unity for some to gain publicity. 2. if we had stuck together then all CM providers would be trained. so the quality would be maintained. let us remember that it was the CM trained people that brought the profession into reput & not the other way around. the doctors now want to latch on to the glory & bask in it. anand --- " Robert L. Felt " <bob wrote: > All, > > > > I am beginning to find this annoying. > > I've followed the " Teaching Western Doctors " thread, > and the related > threads about integration, here, now, elsewhere and > for some time. I am > aware that people's sense of what is right and what > is wrong permeates these > topics. Certainly, none can miss the " heat " between > some list members. > However, there is also a political and economic > dimension that needs a > thorough and objective look. > > First, don't we need to ask ourselves, " what can we > usefully do about any of > this? " Here is a real world example: Ted Kaptchuk > and Kiiko Matsumoto > teach doctors via David Eisenberg's facility at > Harvard. If we think this is > not so good, what should we do about it? Should we > boycott their books, > classes and lectures? Should we ignore what they > have to say, attempt to > embarass them as " turncoats " ? The fact that they > offer their courses, > among many others, means there is a market and that > market will be served > by someone. If we embarrass Ted and Kiiko out of > the trade, will whomever > takes their place be any better? > > The market for these classes exists because > physicians perceive it to be > valuable. What does that mean? Does it mean that > there will be physician > after physician doing bad acupuncture? Does it mean > that there will be > many more physicians speaking in favor of > acupuncture? Does it mean (as I > would guess) that the physician training market is > driven by patient interest > and the economics of managed care and that the > market forces are complex > enough to require a sophisticated response? How do > we know? How do we > decide? > > As for bad acupuncture, what do we really know? > What percentage of these > physician course-takers set-up general CM-related > practices? What > percentage increase their referrals? I cannot > represent my personal > experience as saying something about physician's > skills, interests or motives > in general. In my work I have probably spoken with > more physicians > seeking to learn something about > than most. From my > vantage point as a bookseller, there is no > difference between specifically > trained CM folk and physicians when it comes to > looking for a " cookbook " > solution. But, then, the fly-by-nights aren't > buying books or looking for > answers. Where do we go for some objective measure? > How do we gather > feedback for ourselves? > > As well, we cannot afford to be perceived as > unprincipled. We selected PRC > TCM and promote it as a licensing standard. We > chose books that present a > measurable level of TCM knowledge as a basis for > curriculum. Yet, TCM in > the PRC is neither exclusively one thing or another, > nor is it static. > Integration is not just a therapeutic viewpoint, it > is a social and economic > policy playing a significant role in the PRC's > health care problems. > Interaction with biomedical physicians is pervasive, > as is their participation. > There is a PRC integrated medicine textbook > manuscript on my desk; it is > many of the things people don't like about > integrated medicine. Yet, it also > offers more detailed descriptions of the TCM than > books in common use. > How do we say that it is a lesser good, if it is > more thorough that what we > demand? > > Practically, how do we know that promoting the > " fully qualified general > practitioner " model for physicians is in our best > interest? Consider, for > example, a hospital orthopedic ward where physicians > supervise the use a > set of integrated therapies for the half-dozen most > common cases. If the > CM-related treatments are " successful " as defined by > patient-perceived > criteria (pain, range of motion, etc) and/or as > defined by the cost of care, > what have we lost? Does this take patients away > from the local private > practitioners, or does it increase the market for > their services? Does it > harm patients from substandard care or is the > integrated therapy superior > to either therapy alone? Does it create a larger > market for private > practitioners through the approbation of the > hospital and physicians? Who > knows? > > I do not know the future, so I cannot tell anyone > that their answer is better > than any other's. However, I feel safe in saying > that our relationships with > physicians, medicine in society, and the economics > of managed care, are so > critical to our future that we should look for ways > to answer these questions > in open, shared and reasonably objective ways. > Certainly, there must be > enough common ground among those who disagree about > the issue to arrive > at statements that we can take to the public and to > physicians in a positive > way. Indeed, in my opinion, if the many > practitioner, political and > commercial orgnaizations in our field cannot find > the common ground it > takes to offer a postive approach to medicine in our > own culture, that is > probably a greater danger to the field than > physician malefeasance. > > There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing > drives a bad product > out of the market as fast as a good product. Why > should we leave this > critical relationship to be described by anyone but > ourselves? There are far > too many unanswered questions to take hard-and-fast > positions. > > Bob > > > > bob Paradigm > Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. > Box 1037 > Robert L. Felt > 202 Bendix Drive > 505 758 7758 > Taos, New Mexico 87571 > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville 0402 472 897 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 Vanessa It is the way of the world....too many don't wish to wake up. It takes a long hard struggle day-in and day-out...every single day...and all want it easy. Like the majority of citizens wanting that quick fix pill. Richard > > Hello Richard I know this subject is tiring and sad at the same time. But I > am amazed that many in the group can't see the politics or the > misrepresentation of CARE by the western docs community, including the Pharmaceutical CO. > I admire your guts to say what needs to be said so maybe we can wake up to > the reality and organize the future of TCM/and alternative medicine in > general. > Vanessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 hi all, i do not have exact figures but i can relate some experiences to you all & observations. i have been practising in australia & india for some time. over the years i have noticed the following: 1. in australia we have trained schools teaching acupuncture & TCM. we have alot of practitioners. but we do not have all the graduates starting practise. the % is very samll. about maybe 5-10% only. the rest must be leaving the profession. by the same token there are heaps of doctors increasingly doing acupuncture after weekend courses. their numbers have swelled. this has not increased the demand of TCM or acup. from full fledged practitioners. rather at times i have come acros first hand reports of the efficacy of acup being so good from TCM people that others go to the nearest person doing acupuncture. the patients feel that the closest person & a doctor at that is better & more qualified in the subject. besids the MD does not do anything to address the thought proces & perception of the pt. they tag along to get the benefit. but if a pt were to say they wish to see a bone setter who is supposed to be good they would staright away refuse & send the pt to orthopaedic specialist. so you can see the discrepancies in their logic & thought process. we have about a few hundred TCM people in australia. in india the situation is different. i practised in india for about 10 years. very few people really know the depth of acupuncture amongst the trained people. there are some who do not know when to use different depth needles, that there are side effects of points like abortion,etc, & still go along practising acup. they are least concerned. the WHO rules are not applied to the full. the sri lankan example is similar. so acup world wide has been screwed up by the MD. unless we stand up & take charge & make drastic changes we will be lost as a group. some of us will survive. in idnia i may have been one of the few people who ws qualified. whenever i was giving apresentation there was never aproblem as all questions were being answered & doubts erased. but when one without knowledge gets up to speak 7 makes afool of the subject at hand then there is always the premise from the novice that this subject lacks any depth. THIS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT TO THE NOVICES IN OUR GROUP & DISCUSSION WHO DO NOT SEE THE END PRODUCT OF THEIR ACTIONS. WHAT ONE FORGETS IS THAT EVERY ACTION THEY TAKE HAS AN IMPLICATION ON THE PROFESSION. SO SHORT TERM COURSES FOR ANYBODY LEADS TO DEATH OF THE PROFESSION SOMETIMES SLOWLY & SOMETIMES PRETTY QUICKLY. anand --- acudoc11 wrote: > Anand > > That's a very important point......those certain > allopaths manipulating and > forging the attacks on all other healthcare > providers are very good at dividing > and conquering and for anyone to believe other about > those few in is pure > fantasy. > > Some scoff at the thought of conspiracy or > racketeering but that's exactly > what is going on only those who wish us not to see > it.....would tell us bed time > stories to keep us lulled to sleep. And why we might > ask, are there > colleagues who would play this kind of role....and > the answer is that it all comes back > to power and money. Some organizations have made a > nice wind-fall profit to > their business within the profession or around it > and will do everything in > their power to never lose that..... but as with all > things....there is a time for > birth, a time for life and a time (if not for death) > certainly a time for > change and that is what is resisted. > > I agree with you about looking to the future. All > the previously trained > should automatically be 'grand fathered' into > whatever the newer requirements > are..... Only certain factions resist that. Well > said.....THIS is for the future > and the patients. There are way too FEW > practitioners both in the US and world > wide. In the USA there is a mere 20,000. Anyone know > accurate figures for > other countries and worldwide? So what if a few > real-acupuncturists slipped > through the cracks who did not have every bit of > education up to par. If we > collectively working together supported our own > profession by making that kind of > collective INCLUSION there would be no in-fighting > but you see.....there are > organizations such as the schools and program > accrediting agencies that don't wish > to see this happen as it would upset their > businesses. If all previously > trained practitioners WOULD in fact stand > together.....we could make this happen > and then we could deal with the untrained. > > Richard > > > > > hi, > > i think if only CM practitioners stuck together > & did > > not compromise on standards for anyone. what is > > special about doctors that is not true of anyone. > just > > because one has a knowledge of the human body does > not > > make it any easier. rather i have trained from > similar > > background & i can tell you that its doubly hard. > this > > is so as i had to forget the past education rules > & > > think new. this took a long time. > > now i can think differently as per my chopice. i > am > > sure all the allopaths are laughing at the way > they > > have broken our unity for some to gain publicity. > > 2. if we had stuck together then all CM providers > > would be trained. so the quality would be > maintained. > > let us remember that it was the CM trained people > that > > brought the profession into reput & not the other > way > > around. the doctors now want to latch on to the > glory > > & bask in it. > > anand > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville 0402 472 897 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 sorry about the supposition. but the other hospitals are not interested because in the long term their pts will be lost. so they lose in any case a far as they are concerned. obviously pt care is at the bottom of the list. anand --- <vbirang wrote: > Good point. > Vanessa > >> > Pat Ethridge <pat.ethridge wrote: > Well, but if you look at the reality, this is not > always true. Whoever > controls distribution controls what product gets out > there, even if it is a > lesser product. The control of information affects > what is perceived to be > better, too. Sometimes the effort involved in > shifting from one way of > doing things to another way is perceived to be too > great, i.e., too > expensive. Sometimes the ones at the top, who > control the ultimate output, > have fixed ideas that won't budge, even in the face > of massive contrary > evidence (viz., global warming). This can be seen > everywhere, from bad > movies to gas-guzzling cars to medicine in this > country. It is sometimes > only when a product can bypass this entrenched > system or is supported > elsewhere (for example, by government or private > subsidy or grassroots > action), that the better can prevail. So it is > indeed important to take > control of, or at least participate in, the > " defining " movement before it > gets done for us, by those who might prefer our work > to be considered > " lesser. " > > Pat > > > > > > There is a saying in marketing courses that nothing > drives a bad product > out of the market as fast as a good product. Why > should we leave this > critical relationship to be described by anyone but > ourselves? There are > far too many unanswered questions to take > hard-and-fast positions. > > Bob > > Dear Bob, > > Thank you for a most uplifting post. I most > heartily agree. In the end > it's what happens on behalf of Chinese medicine that > matters. The point is > for Chinese medicine to flourish regardless of who > is the student, the > teacher or the practitioner as long as each has > credibility and integrity. > > > Emmanuel Segmen > Merritt College, Asia Natural > > > > > > > ============================================================================== > NOTE: The information in this email is confidential > and may be legally > privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, > you must not read, use or > disseminate the information. Although this email > and any attachments are > believed to be free of any virus or other defect > that might affect any > computer system into which it is received and > opened, it is the responsibility > of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and > no responsibility is > accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for > any loss or damage arising > in any way from its use. > > ============================================================================== > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 pt care is at the bottom of their list. making money is more imp. anand --- <vbirang wrote: > Anad I need to clear somenthing here; > The docotr in that hospital is Michael a nice guy > that you cannot beoieve he treats anyone that comes > in paid or not, he doesn't care. MAjority of the > patients are treated by licensed acupuncturist > taught by Michael . This hospital with this docotr > are the best in this specialization as addiction for > almost anything. > That is why there is an enourmous amount of people > going there, and they are very lucky I have to > say.(90% results, I would go there myslef). > My point is that other hospitals are not interested, > no curiosity in the amount of result percentage for > some reason. > My question is: > If it is about CARE for the patients why not have > more of this type of procedure in their hospitals > all over the country for the benefit of the > addiction patients ?? > POLITICS to say the least. > Vanessa > > anand bapat <acubapat wrote: > i think we as TCM people have to wake up to the fact > that considering the above figures let us dissect > them. > 1. the hospital had 90% results but the other > hospitals did not follow suit. > 2. migraines can be cured. but hospitals do not wish > to know about it. > 3. inspite of hospital treating 90% people with good > results how many patients actually came over to TCM > practitioners who were practising in the same town. > i > am sure not too many. they preferred or were made to > go or referred to a medical doctor doing acupuncture > because they believe in keeping aclosed shop under > the > guise of quality of care & safety to patients. > always > the same story. > anand > > > > > --- <vbirang wrote: > > Robert wrote it: > > > > >>Practically, how do we know that promoting the > > " fully qualified general > > practitioner " model for physicians is in our best > > interest? Consider, for > > example, a hospital orthopedic ward where > physicians > > supervise the use a > > set of integrated therapies for the half-dozen > most > > common cases. If the > > CM-related treatments are " successful " as defined > by > > patient-perceived > > criteria (pain, range of motion, etc) and/or as > > defined by the cost of care, > > what have we lost? Does this take patients away > > from the local private > > practitioners, or does it increase the market for > > their services? Does it > > harm patients from substandard care or is the > > integrated therapy superior > > to either therapy alone? Does it create a larger > > market for private > > practitioners through the approbation of the > > hospital and physicians? Who > > knows? >. > > I understand your point of view and I hope this > > happens. But I need to mention that a New York > > hospital has been using acupuncture (auriculo) for > > at least 12 years now with around 90% results in > > drug addiction cases, thousands going through it. > > > > But you don't see other hospitals using or > following > > this protocol. > > > > Why they don't follow this amazing 90 percentage > of > > results , natural therapy, great success for > > addiction cases?? > > > > I would say politics , not about care. If it was > > about care, hospitals would be using this protocol > > long time ago. > > > > I have a friend from Austria he is a master in > > treating migraines ( acupuncture), 90 to 100% > > results, not too many treatments and he can get > the > > person very stablein around 6 txs garanteed . > > > > He approached a hospital and offer demonstrations > > about his treatments, natural , no much expenses > > and fast results. The hospital turn him down. He > > tried many times with many hospitals. > > > > I asked him why would you want to work in a > > hospital? He said there is so much people > suffering > > with migraines in hospitals that he feels sorry > and > > wants to help. > > > > So when will this common ground will be broken so > > Comprehensive Approach can be a main dish for > > patients in need??? > > > > When Politics stops. > > > > Vanessa > > > > > > > > Vanessa > > > > > > > > > > > > SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site > > design software > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > ===== > Anand Bapat > Pain Management Specialist > Sports Injury Specialist > Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville > 0402 472 897 > > > > > ______________________ > Want to chat instantly with your online friends? > Get the FREE > Messenger http://uk.messenger./ > > 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.