Identity Crisis

[Guest guest]

acupuncture practitioner

>>>Yehuda they are called acupuncture physician

 

 

Alon, you're right, but that's not the point. What I was saying is that

our title should represent what we do. The result of the course of study

is to hopefully give a graduate a certain degree of theoretical and

clinical expertise in all aspects of TCM, and not just acupuncture.

Should not the licensure reflect what one is : a Licensed Practitioner

(or Physician) of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (LPAOM)? Meaning

that the state grants the license to practice what we do. Doesn't that

make sense, or am I missing something. (Now I understand that at least

in California, until around 15 years ago, herbal programs were more

elective than compulsory, that in those days it truly was a license of

Acupuncture. I actually know a few practitioners from that era who do

only practice only acupuncture, and treat symptomatically, not using

Chinese differential diagnosis. The title Licensed acupuncturist truly

befits them, but today's graduates and those who do practice TCM....?

 

Yehuda

[Guest guest]

, Yehuda L Frischman

<@j...> wrote:

>

 

> Should not the licensure reflect what one is : a Licensed Practitioner

> (or Physician) of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (LPAOM)? Meaning

> that the state grants the license to practice what we do. Doesn't

 

I'm not sure that the " L " for Licensed is even needed in the title.

It would just make the holder of the title look like a lower level

practitioner to the public.

 

For instance, MDs, DOs, Dentists, Chiropractors, etc. do not have the

" L " as part of the initials. You would never see LMD for a Licensed MD.

 

However, social workers and even daycare operators use the " L " as part

of their titles. There is nothing wrong with this, but you have to

ask yourself, with whom would you like to be grouped.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

The title, Lic. Ac., was a historical " accident. " Back in the early

80s, no state was going to legalize a whole other system of medicine.

However, acupuncture looked like a useful, relatively harmless

adjunctive modality to lots of people. That is why we were able to get

acupuncturists licensed back then. Licensing/legalizing CM/OM was a

no-start position. (It still is in a number of states.) The word

" licensed " was probably added because of its insurance reimbursement

implications. I know we here in Colorado have fought to be up-graded

from " registered " to " licensed " acupuncturists for just this reason.

(Just won this battle last year.) Back in the early to mid-80s, all we

were trying to do was practice legally. Till then, we were practicing

behind closed doors, with no ability to advertise and the constant

threat of being busted for the practice of medicine without a license.

So at the time, we didn't care so much what we were called. We were

simply happy to come out from underground.

 

Once we got our foot in the legislative door, we have then expanded

our scope in various states little by little. This incremental

approach was the only thing that was possible at the time. In

politics, it's important not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, Yehuda L Frischman

<@j...> wrote:

>

 

> Should not the licensure reflect what one is : a Licensed Practitioner

> (or Physician) of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (LPAOM)? Meaning

> that the state grants the license to practice what we do. Doesn't

 

I'm not sure that the " L " for Licensed is even needed in the title.

It would just make the holder of the title look like a lower level

practitioner to the public.

 

For instance, MDs, DOs, Dentists, Chiropractors, etc. do not have the

" L " as part of the initials. You would never see LMD for a Licensed MD.

 

However, social workers and even daycare operators use the " L " as part

of their titles. There is nothing wrong with this, but you have to

ask yourself, with whom would you like to be grouped.

 

Brian C. Allen

 

 

I will grant you that, but IMHO I see it as a logical and unifying next

incremental step toward the far greater legitimacy that MDs, DOs

Dentists and Chiropractors have. My point is that to call someone who

studies what we do for four intense years, and prepares and passes no

less intensely for the state board exam (at least in California), a

" licensed acupuncturist " is demeaning as well as inadequate, equivalent

to a Licensed day care operator, licensed massage therapist, or licensed

cosmetologist, courses of study that are for a year or two, at most!

 

Yehuda

 

 

 

" When you see someone doing something wrong, realize that it was brought

before

you because you did something similar. Therefore, instead of judging

him, judge yourself. "

 

The Baal Shem Tov Hakodesh

[Guest guest]

I agree. The biggest group opposing us from this end is the chiropractors.

They claim that they use a different set of theories which is why they won

their lawsuit against the DO in the first place. So why can't we use this

same logic to argue on our own behalf that we are using manipulations to

improve qi and blood flow? This is not chiropractic technically anyway.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: re:identity crisis

>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:20:01 -0800

>

>and not just acupuncture.

> >>>>I agree, and lets remember that CM is not only acup and herbs. As long

>as we think of it this way we are limiting were hopefully we can go in the

>future. We need to demand the full scope of modern TCM, be educated in all

>its modalities, and demand a name that reflects that. I am dealing with

>some right now that for example do not want to include manipulation in our

>definition of tui na. Talk about stupidity. We need to change our own self

>image which is the only way we will demand increase in educational

>standards.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gee I thought it meant

L(egitimate) Ac(upuncturist)

 

just a jab away,

 

of course that does not say what a Chinese herbalist does.

But reminds me of a bunch of guys selling real estate in Chicago that on

their own went out and made a name for themselves .... Realtors, This

really defined what they were doing and the standards they aspired to.

Don't need no government.

 

Ed

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

treatment if absolutely necessary.

 

You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

academic administrators do not?

 

I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

that we should study and do it all.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

We live during a time of change and evolution. Though, as we have

discussed, very few in America practiced more than acupuncture during the

80s and early 90s, today, the obligatory and requisite course of study

for students includes pretty extensive knowledge of Herbal medicine, and

one token course in tuina, taiji/qi gong, and shi liao (diet therapy).

Though agreed, the level, relative intensity, and volume of clinical

patient load that today's student faces is significantly inferior to the

student in the PRC, still, (and I have heard this from more than one of

my Chinese teachers) the English program and texts we use for herbs are

equivalent and at times superior to what the Chinese language programs,

at least in America teach. That speaks well for the didactic end of our

education, at least in herbs.

 

You are correct that the dabbling we received in tuina, taiji/qi gong and

shi liao is embarrassingly inadequate, if we are to practice them, but

that is, I feel, the key question: what do we need to be successful

clinicians? By taking introductory classes in the above three, and by

taking appropriate CEU courses to supplement our education, we have the

opportunity to expand the breadth of our education. Furthermore, I

think you are mistaken when you contend that our practitioners are Jacks

of all trades but masters of none. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The environment, in the PRC, where there are the opportunities for

specialization has resulted from generations of tradition, and massive

numbers of patients available. This will not, for the foreseeable

centuries be the case here in America.

 

Granted our system of education is young and immature. But I think that

it will continue to improve as the quality of texts improve and the

requirement for clinical experience increase.

 

Meanwhile, the reputation of TCM continues to grow daily, practices are

increasingly busy, schools continue to grow in enrollment as the general

population sees results, and the amount of malpractice claims remain

negligible.

 

I think that that is a pretty amazing state for our medicine to be in,

just 35 years after its introduction to these shores.

 

Sincerely,

 

Yehuda

 

 

 

Alon,

 

In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

treatment if absolutely necessary.

 

You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

academic administrators do not?

 

I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

that we should study and do it all.

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

 

" When you see someone doing something wrong, realize that it was brought

before

you because you did something similar. Therefore, instead of judging

him, judge yourself. "

 

The Baal Shem Tov Hakodesh

[Guest guest]

Alon:

 

I agree with you 100%. By having a more in-depth program this will give us the

extra knowledge to practice at a higher level.

 

I feel the educational standards for TCM should be increased to at least include

more of the WM differential diagosis, this would help to assure that patients

are not being treated for a serious illness that was missed.

 

For example, in my past I worked doing PT at the local hospital, at that time I

was also doing my EMT training in the hospital when a older man was rushed to

surgery for an aortic aneurysm that burst. He died soon after. Upon questioning

his wife, her husband had this similar type of pain that was getting worse. He

had been complaining of abdominal pain and back pain. His MD treated him with

antacids and NSAID's even though the patient was getting worse, there was no

furthur investigation of this patients condition.

 

With some of the MD's I have worked with, their knowledge of referral pain is

inadequate. It amazes me, as a DC we had several courses on this, in

orthopedics, neurology, physical and clinical exams, radiology...you get the

point.

 

For those of us who treat pain disorders, visceral disorders, etc. we should

have a complete understanding of this.

 

What I would like to see in the future is a higher standard of TCM education. It

would be nice to model this after medical schools. The first 4 years we learn

the basics and than choose a specialty to practice for the next 1-2 years.

 

As a profession, we could model ourselves similar to the MD's but specialize in

different areas of TCM.

 

There's so much to know with so little professional education.

 

Just a thought

 

Brian N Hardy

 

PS...I am awaiting your new book, when will it be released

 

 

Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote:

You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

master of none.

>>>I think we should learn them at the same level as in china. At least in 1985

they got some of the basics in everything the same way they do in WM med school.

People then go into more depth in areas they are interested in (often this was

post gradate). A good physician must have a good rounded education. And bob yes

i think we should model our schools on China of better yet Korea. This means

good biomedical basic training as well as TCM. I think we need a minimum of real

full time 4 year training. That means 8 hr a day of classes with real demands on

extra self study. That means getting rid of students that are not passing yearly

exams, etc. Basic training as nothing to do with mastering anything (and medical

schools is basic training). It has to do with minimum levels of competency in

areas which are decided to be of value. Learning and being exposed to only one

area just produces dogmatic robots that are not critical thinkers as is so

evident in this profession. If all you have

is a hammer everybody looks like a nail.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob, I feel like I really should know the answer to this question,

but are you saying that TCM practitioners from China either study

acupuncture or Chinese herbs (or tuina), but not both? That's hard

for me to believe because I had some Chinese teachers in school who

taught both acupuncture and herbs. Can you explain? Thanks--

 

Laura

 

 

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

>

> Alon,

>

> In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

> divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

> medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

> acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

> They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

> both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

> acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

> modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

> treatment if absolutely necessary.

>

> You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

> it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

> master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

> have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

> learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

> tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

> from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

> translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

> time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

> language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

> their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

> experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

> know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

> academic administrators do not?

>

> I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

> that we should study and do it all.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

and not just acupuncture.

>>>>I agree, and lets remember that CM is not only acup and herbs. As long as we

think of it this way we are limiting were hopefully we can go in the future. We

need to demand the full scope of modern TCM, be educated in all its modalities,

and demand a name that reflects that. I am dealing with some right now that for

example do not want to include manipulation in our definition of tui na. Talk

about stupidity. We need to change our own self image which is the only way we

will demand increase in educational standards.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Laura,

 

I hate to butt in to a question asked of another, but I can vouch for

what Bob is saying. I know that in my school, we had a tuina master who

had supposedly published a book in China on Tuina, was always in demand

because of tuina skill, by both patients and students, was also quite

adept in acupuncture orthopedics, but when it came to formula writing,

his skill left much to be desired. I remember, that in my second year of

school, I asked a Korean colleague of his about what seemed to be a

formula of little value relative to the patient in question. His answer

was, " Don't go to Dr. X for herbs, because in China, he never learned

them, and only became familiar with them in the mid-90s when he had to in

order to pass the Cal state board. "

 

 

 

Hi Bob, I feel like I really should know the answer to this question,

but are you saying that TCM practitioners from China either study

acupuncture or Chinese herbs (or tuina), but not both? That's hard

for me to believe because I had some Chinese teachers in school who

taught both acupuncture and herbs. Can you explain? Thanks--

 

Laura

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" When you see someone doing something wrong, realize that it was brought

before

you because you did something similar. Therefore, instead of judging

him, judge yourself. "

 

The Baal Shem Tov Hakodesh

[Guest guest]

Hi Laura,

 

TCM training in China certainly is separated for acupuncture/tuina,

herbs and pharmacology. Each major does some study of the other, but

students only gain the full basic education in one and practice only

that modality in clinic. I posted a more detailed explanation via the

example of Shanghai Uni of TCM in the Masters in Australia thread. But

basically:-

 

TCM (Herbal medicine) = 5 years full time

Acupuncture or Tuina = 5 years full time

Pharmacology = 4 years full time

 

It is in light of these simple facts that irritates me when some think

3 or 4 years study is perfectly sufficient to cover all these is

modalities for practice.

 

The other issue about teachers is important.......I too had many

teachers who taught all 3, but only qualified in one in China. This is

an issue for our education that is often overlooked. We often have

teachers who only really studied acupuncture in China lecturing on

herbal medicine............

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

On 15/12/2004, at 6:04 PM, heylaurag wrote:

 

>

>

> Hi Bob, I feel like I really should know the answer to this question,

> but are you saying that TCM practitioners from China either study

> acupuncture or Chinese herbs (or tuina), but not both? That's hard

> for me to believe because I had some Chinese teachers in school who

> taught both acupuncture and herbs. Can you explain? Thanks--

>

> Laura

>

>

> , " Bob Flaws "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

>>

>> Alon,

>>

>> In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

>> divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

>> medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

>> acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

>> They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

>> both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

>> acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

>> modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

>> treatment if absolutely necessary.

>>

>> You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

>> it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

>> master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

>> have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

>> learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

>> tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

>> from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

>> translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

>> time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

>> language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

>> their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

>> experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

>> know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

>> academic administrators do not?

>>

>> I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

>> that we should study and do it all.

>>

>> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

 

Very interesting....I wish that I had known that at the time. Now

that I think about it, it does make sense though. Looking back, it

seems pretty obvious to me which specialty my teachers had. That also

explains why I have had trouble coming up with someone to consult with

who seems to excell in BOTH acupuncture and Chinese herbs! Clearly

I need to find one person for herbs and one person for acupuncture, huh?

 

I'm not sure that it is inherently bad that there is now this western

anomaly of practitioners who studied both. I realize that this

approach runs the risk of creating a practitioner who is a jack of all

trades, master of none....but one does inform us of the other....so

in some ways knowing about one does make us better at the other.

There are some conditions that I feel like I treat better with

acupuncture than people who didn't study herbs. I feel like an

herbalist's approach to acupuncture has some merit (I know there are

many who disagree with me---but I've seen it work).

 

At this point I personally haven't decided which I am more in love

with---acupuncture or herbs. I swing back and forth, I am so fickle.

I want to excell at both. Is that really asking too much?

 

Laura

 

 

 

, Steven Slater

<laozhongyi@m...> wrote:

> Hi Laura,

>

> TCM training in China certainly is separated for acupuncture/tuina,

> herbs and pharmacology. Each major does some study of the other, but

> students only gain the full basic education in one and practice only

> that modality in clinic. I posted a more detailed explanation via the

> example of Shanghai Uni of TCM in the Masters in Australia thread. But

> basically:-

>

> TCM (Herbal medicine) = 5 years full time

> Acupuncture or Tuina = 5 years full time

> Pharmacology = 4 years full time

>

> It is in light of these simple facts that irritates me when some think

> 3 or 4 years study is perfectly sufficient to cover all these is

> modalities for practice.

>

> The other issue about teachers is important.......I too had many

> teachers who taught all 3, but only qualified in one in China. This is

> an issue for our education that is often overlooked. We often have

> teachers who only really studied acupuncture in China lecturing on

> herbal medicine............

>

> Best Wishes,

>

> Steve

>

> On 15/12/2004, at 6:04 PM, heylaurag wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Hi Bob, I feel like I really should know the answer to this question,

> > but are you saying that TCM practitioners from China either study

> > acupuncture or Chinese herbs (or tuina), but not both? That's hard

> > for me to believe because I had some Chinese teachers in school who

> > taught both acupuncture and herbs. Can you explain? Thanks--

> >

> > Laura

> >

> >

> > , " Bob Flaws "

> > <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> >>

> >> Alon,

> >>

> >> In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

> >> divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

> >> medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

> >> acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

> >> They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

> >> both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

> >> acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

> >> modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

> >> treatment if absolutely necessary.

> >>

> >> You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in

all of

> >> it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all

trades but

> >> master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we

currently

> >> have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking

adult

> >> learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

> >> tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

> >> from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

> >> translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

> >> time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

> >> language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

> >> their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

> >> experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

> >> know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

> >> academic administrators do not?

> >>

> >> I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

> >> that we should study and do it all.

> >>

> >> Bob

> >

[Guest guest]

What I find interesting and missing when we discuss this issue is how much

of their training is actually in WM vs. CM? I have heard that only two

full-time years are in CM. Also important to point out that they start

their undergrad earlier. I think that the best model to look at is the one

used by the US DC and ND schools. Both of these systems have chosen to

provide a large contingent of western sciences along with their own ideas of

diagnosis and therapy. Our educational system is trying to buck the norm

and has served to bite us in the rear. I accept that our profession wants

to be different, let's make this difference show up by improving future

practitioner development. Then would could truly say that we have the best

of both worlds. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Steven Slater <laozhongyi

>

>

>Re: re:identity crisis

>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:43:21 +1100

>

>Hi Laura,

>

>TCM training in China certainly is separated for acupuncture/tuina,

>herbs and pharmacology. Each major does some study of the other, but

>students only gain the full basic education in one and practice only

>that modality in clinic. I posted a more detailed explanation via the

>example of Shanghai Uni of TCM in the Masters in Australia thread. But

>basically:-

>

>TCM (Herbal medicine) = 5 years full time

>Acupuncture or Tuina = 5 years full time

>Pharmacology = 4 years full time

>

>It is in light of these simple facts that irritates me when some think

>3 or 4 years study is perfectly sufficient to cover all these is

>modalities for practice.

>

>The other issue about teachers is important.......I too had many

>teachers who taught all 3, but only qualified in one in China. This is

>an issue for our education that is often overlooked. We often have

>teachers who only really studied acupuncture in China lecturing on

>herbal medicine............

>

>Best Wishes,

>

>Steve

>

>On 15/12/2004, at 6:04 PM, heylaurag wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Hi Bob, I feel like I really should know the answer to this question,

> > but are you saying that TCM practitioners from China either study

> > acupuncture or Chinese herbs (or tuina), but not both? That's hard

> > for me to believe because I had some Chinese teachers in school who

> > taught both acupuncture and herbs. Can you explain? Thanks--

> >

> > Laura

> >

> >

> > , " Bob Flaws "

> > <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> >>

> >> Alon,

> >>

> >> In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

> >> divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

> >> medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

> >> acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

> >> They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

> >> both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

> >> acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

> >> modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

> >> treatment if absolutely necessary.

> >>

> >> You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

> >> it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

> >> master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

> >> have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

> >> learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

> >> tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

> >> from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

> >> translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

> >> time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

> >> language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

> >> their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

> >> experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

> >> know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

> >> academic administrators do not?

> >>

> >> I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

> >> that we should study and do it all.

> >>

> >> Bob

> >

>

[Guest guest]

One of our greatest difficulties is that of wanting to teach to the lowest

common denominator and accepting everyone into our programs. This alone

tends to weaken us in the eyes of our competitors. I like the idea of a

full-time 4 year program, makes sense. The program that I attended started

out with night/weekend classes and moved into full-time day classes. I

attended for 6 years and felt that adding 1000 hours of tui na/bodywork was

essential. I felt this was a good entry level education for CM. The WM and

practice mgmt were weak at that time. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: re:identity crisis

>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:40:44 -0800

>

>You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

>it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

>master of none.

> >>>I think we should learn them at the same level as in china. At least in

>1985 they got some of the basics in everything the same way they do in WM

>med school. People then go into more depth in areas they are interested in

>(often this was post gradate). A good physician must have a good rounded

>education. And bob yes i think we should model our schools on China of

>better yet Korea. This means good biomedical basic training as well as TCM.

>I think we need a minimum of real full time 4 year training. That means 8

>hr a day of classes with real demands on extra self study. That means

>getting rid of students that are not passing yearly exams, etc. Basic

>training as nothing to do with mastering anything (and medical schools is

>basic training). It has to do with minimum levels of competency in areas

>which are decided to be of value. Learning and being exposed to only one

>area just produces dogmatic robots that are not critical thinkers as is so

>evident in this profession. If all you have is a hammer everybody looks

>like a nail.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

master of none.

>>>I think we should learn them at the same level as in china. At least in 1985

they got some of the basics in everything the same way they do in WM med school.

People then go into more depth in areas they are interested in (often this was

post gradate). A good physician must have a good rounded education. And bob yes

i think we should model our schools on China of better yet Korea. This means

good biomedical basic training as well as TCM. I think we need a minimum of real

full time 4 year training. That means 8 hr a day of classes with real demands on

extra self study. That means getting rid of students that are not passing yearly

exams, etc. Basic training as nothing to do with mastering anything (and medical

schools is basic training). It has to do with minimum levels of competency in

areas which are decided to be of value. Learning and being exposed to only one

area just produces dogmatic robots that are not critical thinkers as is so

evident in this profession. If all you have is a hammer everybody looks like a

nail.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" Hi Bob, I feel like I really should know the answer to this question,

but are you saying that TCM practitioners from China either study

acupuncture or Chinese herbs (or tuina), but not both? That's hard

for me to believe because I had some Chinese teachers in school who

taught both acupuncture and herbs. Can you explain? Thanks--

 

Laura,

 

Most definitely that's what I'm saying. Typically, when Chinese

doctors get to the U.S., they are told (either by their compatriots or

school administrators) that they need to do both modalities. What that

means is that the majority have to learn acupuncture. I've talked to a

number of Chinese doctors teaching at U.S. schools who have

specifically told me that this is what they had to do. Did you ever

ask any of these Chinese doctors the extent of their training in

acupuncture? I think you might be surprised.

 

When I was a student at the Shanghai College of CM back in the early

80s, there were a number of Chinese who had gotten exit visas to move

to North America or Europe who were taking three month acupuncture

courses so they could work in their new country. One that I became

friendly with was a graduate of the college who was a famous tuina

practitioner but felt he needed to learn acupuncture. I'm sure all of

these said they were graduates of the college and never told their

clients what their real training and experience in acupuncture was. As

we all know, the definition of an expert is someone who comes from far

away, preferably another country.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Yehuda,

Not to burst your bubble but many graduates do not make it as professionals

after 5 years and there have been many school closings of recent years (19).

Add to this a declining recognition by insurance companies and this is a

major concern. The insurance industry is looking to hold onto its medical

brethren at any cost, which means letting go of more cost effective

alternatives. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Yehuda L Frischman <

>

>

>Re: re:identity crisis

>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:29:41 -0800

>

>

>Bob,

>

>We live during a time of change and evolution. Though, as we have

>discussed, very few in America practiced more than acupuncture during the

>80s and early 90s, today, the obligatory and requisite course of study

>for students includes pretty extensive knowledge of Herbal medicine, and

>one token course in tuina, taiji/qi gong, and shi liao (diet therapy).

>Though agreed, the level, relative intensity, and volume of clinical

>patient load that today's student faces is significantly inferior to the

>student in the PRC, still, (and I have heard this from more than one of

>my Chinese teachers) the English program and texts we use for herbs are

>equivalent and at times superior to what the Chinese language programs,

>at least in America teach. That speaks well for the didactic end of our

>education, at least in herbs.

>

>You are correct that the dabbling we received in tuina, taiji/qi gong and

>shi liao is embarrassingly inadequate, if we are to practice them, but

>that is, I feel, the key question: what do we need to be successful

>clinicians? By taking introductory classes in the above three, and by

>taking appropriate CEU courses to supplement our education, we have the

>opportunity to expand the breadth of our education. Furthermore, I

>think you are mistaken when you contend that our practitioners are Jacks

>of all trades but masters of none. You are comparing apples and oranges.

> The environment, in the PRC, where there are the opportunities for

>specialization has resulted from generations of tradition, and massive

>numbers of patients available. This will not, for the foreseeable

>centuries be the case here in America.

>

>Granted our system of education is young and immature. But I think that

>it will continue to improve as the quality of texts improve and the

>requirement for clinical experience increase.

>

>Meanwhile, the reputation of TCM continues to grow daily, practices are

>increasingly busy, schools continue to grow in enrollment as the general

>population sees results, and the amount of malpractice claims remain

>negligible.

>

>I think that that is a pretty amazing state for our medicine to be in,

>just 35 years after its introduction to these shores.

>

>Sincerely,

>

>Yehuda

>

>

>

>Alon,

>

>In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

>divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

>medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

>acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

>They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

>both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

>acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

>modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

>treatment if absolutely necessary.

>

>You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

>it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

>master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

>have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

>learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

>tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

>from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

>translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

>time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

>language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

>their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

>experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

>know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

>academic administrators do not?

>

>I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

>that we should study and do it all.

>

>Bob

" When you see someone doing something wrong, realize that it was brought

>before

>you because you did something similar. Therefore, instead of judging

>him, judge yourself. "

>

>The Baal Shem Tov Hakodesh

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, I can see your point, and it makes sense...but here's another way

to look at it:

 

I personally don't necessarily want that level of responsibility. I

don't think that I could ever feel competent enough to be

responsibile for knowing when there might be a serious western dx

unless I actually was an MD...and I have no interest in being an MD.

 

I think that people do not expect us to be able to make that call,

and I don't want them to start to expect it. They just expect us to

understand things from a TCM point of view, and that's how I like it.

People go ahead and have things checked out by their MD whether I

suggest it or not. Its like, just because a dietician might suggest

a diet change that might be good for a health problem doesn't mean

that they are saying that you do not have a serious health problem

needing more intervention. So just because someone is trying

acupuncture doesn't mean we are saying they might not need a

different intervention.

 

I sure am full of opinions these days, huh? As a new practitioner,

maybe I shouldn't be so opinionated though...what do I know?!

 

Laura

 

Laura

 

 

, Brian Hardy

<mischievous00> wrote:

>

> Alon:

>

> I agree with you 100%. By having a more in-depth program this will

give us the extra knowledge to practice at a higher level.

>

> I feel the educational standards for TCM should be increased to at

least include more of the WM differential diagosis, this would help

to assure that patients are not being treated for a serious illness

that was missed.

>

> For example, in my past I worked doing PT at the local hospital, at

that time I was also doing my EMT training in the hospital when a

older man was rushed to surgery for an aortic aneurysm that burst. He

died soon after. Upon questioning his wife, her husband had this

similar type of pain that was getting worse. He had been complaining

of abdominal pain and back pain. His MD treated him with antacids and

NSAID's even though the patient was getting worse, there was no

furthur investigation of this patients condition.

>

> With some of the MD's I have worked with, their knowledge of

referral pain is inadequate. It amazes me, as a DC we had several

courses on this, in orthopedics, neurology, physical and clinical

exams, radiology...you get the point.

>

> For those of us who treat pain disorders, visceral disorders, etc.

we should have a complete understanding of this.

>

> What I would like to see in the future is a higher standard of TCM

education. It would be nice to model this after medical schools. The

first 4 years we learn the basics and than choose a specialty to

practice for the next 1-2 years.

>

> As a profession, we could model ourselves similar to the MD's but

specialize in different areas of TCM.

>

> There's so much to know with so little professional education.

>

> Just a thought

>

> Brian N Hardy

>

> PS...I am awaiting your new book, when will it be released

>

>

> Alon Marcus <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all

of

> it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades

but

> master of none.

> >>>I think we should learn them at the same level as in china. At

least in 1985 they got some of the basics in everything the same way

they do in WM med school. People then go into more depth in areas

they are interested in (often this was post gradate). A good

physician must have a good rounded education. And bob yes i think we

should model our schools on China of better yet Korea. This means

good biomedical basic training as well as TCM. I think we need a

minimum of real full time 4 year training. That means 8 hr a day of

classes with real demands on extra self study. That means getting rid

of students that are not passing yearly exams, etc. Basic training as

nothing to do with mastering anything (and medical schools is basic

training). It has to do with minimum levels of competency in areas

which are decided to be of value. Learning and being exposed to only

one area just produces dogmatic robots that are not critical thinkers

as is so evident in this profession. If all you have

> is a hammer everybody looks like a nail.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Laura,

Opinions are good and everyone has a few. As for western diagnosis it is a

complicated thing as many states have legislated that we refer to an MD for

serious medical conditions. Depending on your state you might have this

obligation. I think that the level of basic medical knowledge is important

to properly refer and fulfill our obligation to provide care. I think we

tend to get bent out of shape when we think about the possible liability or

all of the medical knowledge out their. This should not be our biggest

focus, it should be on quality patient care. Our roles are changing and we

are becoming more mainstream. With that comes greater ops and challenges.

These will be overcome by improved and increased coursework. Integration is

the future, separation is not. Our colleagues throughout the world know

this and it is reflected in their educational programs. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

On 12/15/04 9:31 PM, " heylaurag " <heylaurag wrote:

 

>

> Hi, I can see your point, and it makes sense...but here's another way

> to look at it:

>

> I personally don't necessarily want that level of responsibility. I

> don't think that I could ever feel competent enough to be

> responsibile for knowing when there might be a serious western dx

> unless I actually was an MD...and I have no interest in being an MD.

>

> I think that people do not expect us to be able to make that call,

> and I don't want them to start to expect it. They just expect us to

> understand things from a TCM point of view, and that's how I like it.

> People go ahead and have things checked out by their MD whether I

> suggest it or not. Its like, just because a dietician might suggest

> a diet change that might be good for a health problem doesn't mean

> that they are saying that you do not have a serious health problem

> needing more intervention. So just because someone is trying

> acupuncture doesn't mean we are saying they might not need a

> different intervention.

>

> I sure am full of opinions these days, huh? As a new practitioner,

> maybe I shouldn't be so opinionated though...what do I know?!

>

> Laura

>

> Laura

>

>

> , Brian Hardy

> <mischievous00> wrote:

>> >

>> > Alon:

>> >

>> > I agree with you 100%. By having a more in-depth program this will

> give us the extra knowledge to practice at a higher level.

>> >

>> > I feel the educational standards for TCM should be increased to at

> least include more of the WM differential diagosis, this would help

> to assure that patients are not being treated for a serious illness

> that was missed.

>> >

>> > For example, in my past I worked doing PT at the local hospital, at

> that time I was also doing my EMT training in the hospital when a

> older man was rushed to surgery for an aortic aneurysm that burst. He

> died soon after. Upon questioning his wife, her husband had this

> similar type of pain that was getting worse. He had been complaining

> of abdominal pain and back pain. His MD treated him with antacids and

> NSAID's even though the patient was getting worse, there was no

> furthur investigation of this patients condition.

>> >

>> > With some of the MD's I have worked with, their knowledge of

> referral pain is inadequate. It amazes me, as a DC we had several

> courses on this, in orthopedics, neurology, physical and clinical

> exams, radiology...you get the point.

>> >

>> > For those of us who treat pain disorders, visceral disorders, etc.

> we should have a complete understanding of this.

>> >

>> > What I would like to see in the future is a higher standard of TCM

> education. It would be nice to model this after medical schools. The

> first 4 years we learn the basics and than choose a specialty to

> practice for the next 1-2 years.

>> >

>> > As a profession, we could model ourselves similar to the MD's but

> specialize in different areas of TCM.

>> >

>> > There's so much to know with so little professional education.

>> >

>> > Just a thought

>> >

>> > Brian N Hardy

>> >

>> > PS...I am awaiting your new book, when will it be released

>> >

>> >

>> > Alon Marcus <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>> > You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all

> of

>> > it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades

> but

>> > master of none.

>>>>> > >>>I think we should learn them at the same level as in china. At

> least in 1985 they got some of the basics in everything the same way

> they do in WM med school. People then go into more depth in areas

> they are interested in (often this was post gradate). A good

> physician must have a good rounded education. And bob yes i think we

> should model our schools on China of better yet Korea. This means

> good biomedical basic training as well as TCM. I think we need a

> minimum of real full time 4 year training. That means 8 hr a day of

> classes with real demands on extra self study. That means getting rid

> of students that are not passing yearly exams, etc. Basic training as

> nothing to do with mastering anything (and medical schools is basic

> training). It has to do with minimum levels of competency in areas

> which are decided to be of value. Learning and being exposed to only

> one area just produces dogmatic robots that are not critical thinkers

> as is so evident in this profession. If all you have

>> > is a hammer everybody looks like a nail.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

I urge the creation of Boards that would offer standardization and

certification in each of the fields. I would not leave that up to our

government but our profession. The outline, structure and organization, is

the easy part. All we (me, the little guy) needs is Attila the Hun to settle

all the ego's.

 

Ed Kasper LAc Santa Cruz, CA.

 

 

Message: 12

Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:17:45 -0000

" Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

Re: re:identity crisis

 

 

Alon,

 

In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

treatment if absolutely necessary.

 

You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

academic administrators do not?

 

I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

that we should study and do it all.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Dear Mike,

 

The only reasons I could imagine why graduates would not live up to their

expectations would be that they don't know how to market themselves, or

locate themselves strategically. I can't imagine any other reason

(unless they are inept!). As far as school closings, don't you think

that this is a classic example of the stronger programs surviving and

flourishing. Again, as schools become sophisticated and saavy, they will

succeed in attracting more patients to their clinics, better professors

to their faculties, and, of course, the bottom line, more qualified

students to their programs. As far as insurance companies go, they are

EXTREMELY sensitive to their client base. Don't you think that if enough

individuals and groups request coverage for Acupuncture and Oriental

medicine, that the pendulum will again swing our way. How was it that we

became primary care providers for Worker's comp in California (though we

aren't any more)? It's all from lobbying the companies. As they keep

hearing that their patients get well faster and cheaper from us, you

don't think they will blink, in spite of the MDs pressuring them?

 

Yehuda

 

 

 

Yehuda,

Not to burst your bubble but many graduates do not make it as

professionals

after 5 years and there have been many school closings of recent years

(19).

Add to this a declining recognition by insurance companies and this is

a

major concern. The insurance industry is looking to hold onto its

medical

brethren at any cost, which means letting go of more cost effective

alternatives. Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Yehuda L Frischman <

>

>

>Re: re:identity crisis

>Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:29:41 -0800

>

>

>Bob,

>

>We live during a time of change and evolution. Though, as we have

>discussed, very few in America practiced more than acupuncture during

the

>80s and early 90s, today, the obligatory and requisite course of study

>for students includes pretty extensive knowledge of Herbal medicine,

and

>one token course in tuina, taiji/qi gong, and shi liao (diet therapy).

>Though agreed, the level, relative intensity, and volume of clinical

>patient load that today's student faces is significantly inferior to the

>student in the PRC, still, (and I have heard this from more than one of

>my Chinese teachers) the English program and texts we use for herbs are

>equivalent and at times superior to what the Chinese language programs,

>at least in America teach. That speaks well for the didactic end of our

>education, at least in herbs.

>

>You are correct that the dabbling we received in tuina, taiji/qi gong

and

>shi liao is embarrassingly inadequate, if we are to practice them, but

>that is, I feel, the key question: what do we need to be successful

>clinicians? By taking introductory classes in the above three, and by

>taking appropriate CEU courses to supplement our education, we have the

>opportunity to expand the breadth of our education. Furthermore, I

>think you are mistaken when you contend that our practitioners are Jacks

>of all trades but masters of none. You are comparing apples and

oranges.

> The environment, in the PRC, where there are the opportunities for

>specialization has resulted from generations of tradition, and massive

>numbers of patients available. This will not, for the foreseeable

>centuries be the case here in America.

>

>Granted our system of education is young and immature. But I think that

>it will continue to improve as the quality of texts improve and the

>requirement for clinical experience increase.

>

>Meanwhile, the reputation of TCM continues to grow daily, practices are

>increasingly busy, schools continue to grow in enrollment as the general

>population sees results, and the amount of malpractice claims remain

>negligible.

>

>I think that that is a pretty amazing state for our medicine to be in,

>just 35 years after its introduction to these shores.

>

>Sincerely,

>

>Yehuda

>

>

>

>Alon,

>

>In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

>divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

>medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

>acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

>They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

>both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

>acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

>modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

>treatment if absolutely necessary.

>

>You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

>it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

>master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

>have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

>learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

>tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

>from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

>translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

>time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

>language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

>their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

>experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

>know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

>academic administrators do not?

>

>I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

>that we should study and do it all.

>

>Bob

>

" When you see someone doing something wrong, realize that it was brought

before

you because you did something similar. Therefore, instead of judging

him, judge yourself. "

 

The Baal Shem Tov Hakodesh

[Guest guest]

While ego can certainly be a stumbling block, I think that people are simply

voicing their concerns over things that matter to them. We have had good

discourse on this and other issues on this forum. Thanks Todd for offerring

this to us. People see things through their own lens of experience and

understanding. What we need to be able to do is to offer information that

can help to unite us all. We need to list the concerns, as well as the

possible solutions and repercussions of such actions. That way we can

anticipate consequences of said action. Hope this make sense to you all.

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Ed Kasper LAc " <eddy

>

>

> RE: identity crisis

>Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:28:31 -0800

>

>I urge the creation of Boards that would offer standardization and

>certification in each of the fields. I would not leave that up to our

>government but our profession. The outline, structure and organization, is

>the easy part. All we (me, the little guy) needs is Attila the Hun to

>settle

>all the ego's.

>

>Ed Kasper LAc Santa Cruz, CA.

>

>

>Message: 12

> Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:17:45 -0000

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>Re: re:identity crisis

>

>

>Alon,

>

>In my experience, Chinese yi-sheng graduate from one of three

>divisions within their CM colleges: 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

>medicine, 3) pharmacology. Even within the acupuncture division,

>acupuncturists learn acupuncture and tuina practitioners learn tuina.

>They do not learn or practice both and do not receive a diploma in

>both. Similarly, internal medicine practitioners do not learn enough

>acupuncture to practice it. Each learns only enough of the other's

>modality to make knowledgable referrals and do some emergency

>treatment if absolutely necessary.

>

>You, on the other hand, are saying we all need to be trained in all of

>it. So what you are saying is that we should be jack of all trades but

>master of none. As I see it, one of the big problems that we currently

>have in our American CM educational system is that we are asking adult

>learners to study and master three different modalities (acupuncture,

>tuina, and Chinese herbal medicine) in an abbreviated length of time,

>from questionable teachers, with insufficient clinical training, in

>translation with questionable standards, and less brain cells and

>time. If full-time Chinese students studying for 4 years in their own

>language beginning at 18-19 years of age, from teachers who teach in

>their own language, and who do internships in real hospitals under

>experienced mentors are not asked to do this, why should we? Do we

>know something that thousands of professional Chinese teachers and

>academic administrators do not?

>

>I strongly object to this insistence on the part of some Westerners

>that we should study and do it all.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" Meanwhile, the reputation of TCM continues to grow daily, practices

are increasingly busy, schools continue to grow in enrollment as the

general population sees results, and the amount of malpractice claims

remain negligible. "

 

IMHO, this is only because the practice of acupuncture is not

dependent on Chinese medical theory and diagnosis. But we've been over

this ground before.

 

Bob