TCM - A sincere proposal that may change all our lives.

[Guest guest]

How about integrating the most useful aspects of what it is they do, and have

a basic knowledge of their diagnostics and treatments so we can understand

what illnesses they have caused or exaggerated so we can then do our best to

help our patients? We just need a better knowledge of their field than they seem

to feel they need of ours in order to be ethical.

David Molony

 

In a message dated 5/10/04 11:07:06 PM, Musiclear writes:

 

 

>     There have been suggestions that we integrate with the western way. 

>    

>     But I ask, why would we want to integrate with a business franchise

> whose

> own journal suggests that they are the third killer in the states?

>

>     As far as chronic disease goes, the " Western " approach kills people.  We

> do not.  Clear and simple.  There is something fundamentally wrong with

> wanting to integrate ourselves with these people.

>

>     Let us stand apart, as healers.  Let us talk about the wonders of the

> western way of treating trauma.  Let us also talk about the death and pain

> of

> their attempt at controlling chronic disease.

>

>     When a rational mind looks at the option of treating their personal

> chronic illness with philosophies stemming from an illness manufacturing

> business,

> or our way of reestablishing balance, they will choose the balanced

> approach.

>

>     The problem we are up against is that most of us see no other

> alternative

> than to join with a group of unknowing killers, because they have such a

> strong hold on the medical treatment market. 

>    

>     The drug companies have brain washed our society into thinking what they

> do is science and proven to cure.  Unfortunately that is far from the

> truth. 

> Western illness control is a business that creates new illness to treat with

> more drugs that create more illness, ect. ect..

>

>     Fortunately the statistics are against western medicine as a treatment

> for chronic illness and science is now saying their models are causing more

> harm

> than good AND that there are cheap effective remedies for most of the

> illness

> out there.

>

>     We need to educate the world about this fact so the public can make a

> reasonable choice. 

>    

>     If we try to embrace the current system, we are done for.  The best

> approach for true freedom in our society is to tear down the veil of

> illusion

> created by the drug companies, and educate those that will hear of our

> viable

> alternative.

>

>     We have the option of helping to change the fundamental approach to

> treating illness in the world.  Let's take a stand for health and freedom

> and teach

> people the truth.  The current model is a farce that kills.  We offer a

> system of health that preserves the quality and longevity of life.

>    

>     Those simple truths will change the tide of health care. 

>

>     Sincerely,

>

>     Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree.

 

I don't have a problem with that. It is the more ethical thing to do.

 

What my concern is, is that our profession leaders will take us down a

road that we work as equals with western docs.

That will never work, as we are healers and they are ________.

 

I believe it is our duty to spread the truth of what drugs are doing to

our society and do what ever we can to strip the hold they seem to have in our

world. In the end, the truth will set us and the rest of humanity free.

 

Another concern I have is that the western way is intoxicating. It has a

way of sucking people in and getting them to abandon some of the deeper

understandings of our training for the ease of symptom management through

biochemistry.

Take a look at China. Full of the worlds best herbalists and

acupuncturists and they are being dropped like hot potatoes.

 

Chris

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/11/2004 4:15:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

acuman1 writes:

How about integrating the most useful aspects of what it is they do, and have

a basic knowledge of their diagnostics and treatments so we can understand

what illnesses they have caused or exaggerated so we can then do our best to

help our patients? We just need a better knowledge of their field than they

seem

to feel they need of ours in order to be ethical.

David Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

FYI. I usually start out a new patient by giving him/her an orientation as to

how I would approach it, which includes understanding of WM diagnosis

(either from reports brought along by the patients or by my own WM diagnosis

using pure WM model; if my knowledge is too limited in a give case, I would

research after the initial session), followed by TCM diagnosis. I feel that

being able to show my understanding of WM diagnosis helps winning the

the first step toward the trust; the second step comes along when TCM diagnosis

is explained, contrasting with WM diagnosis. The real trust comes when

the course of rebalancing act proceed as planned.

 

Mike L.

acuman1 wrote:

How about integrating the most useful aspects of what it is they do, and have

a basic knowledge of their diagnostics and treatments so we can understand

what illnesses they have caused or exaggerated so we can then do our best to

help our patients? We just need a better knowledge of their field than they seem

to feel they need of ours in order to be ethical.

David Molony

 

In a message dated 5/10/04 11:07:06 PM, Musiclear writes:

 

 

> There have been suggestions that we integrate with the western way.

>

> But I ask, why would we want to integrate with a business franchise

> whose

> own journal suggests that they are the third killer in the states?

>

> As far as chronic disease goes, the " Western " approach kills people. We

> do not. Clear and simple. There is something fundamentally wrong with

> wanting to integrate ourselves with these people.

>

> Let us stand apart, as healers. Let us talk about the wonders of the

> western way of treating trauma. Let us also talk about the death and pain

> of

> their attempt at controlling chronic disease.

>

> When a rational mind looks at the option of treating their personal

> chronic illness with philosophies stemming from an illness manufacturing

> business,

> or our way of reestablishing balance, they will choose the balanced

> approach.

>

> The problem we are up against is that most of us see no other

> alternative

> than to join with a group of unknowing killers, because they have such a

> strong hold on the medical treatment market.

>

> The drug companies have brain washed our society into thinking what they

> do is science and proven to cure. Unfortunately that is far from the

> truth.

> Western illness control is a business that creates new illness to treat with

> more drugs that create more illness, ect. ect..

>

> Fortunately the statistics are against western medicine as a treatment

> for chronic illness and science is now saying their models are causing more

> harm

> than good AND that there are cheap effective remedies for most of the

> illness

> out there.

>

> We need to educate the world about this fact so the public can make a

> reasonable choice.

>

> If we try to embrace the current system, we are done for. The best

> approach for true freedom in our society is to tear down the veil of

> illusion

> created by the drug companies, and educate those that will hear of our

> viable

> alternative.

>

> We have the option of helping to change the fundamental approach to

> treating illness in the world. Let's take a stand for health and freedom

> and teach

> people the truth. The current model is a farce that kills. We offer a

> system of health that preserves the quality and longevity of life.

>

> Those simple truths will change the tide of health care.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/14/04 9:01:51 AM, kampo36 writes:

 

 

> I am no proponent of integration; i worked for years in a busy rheumatology

> practice

> with physicians and i quit because i thought i could render much better care

> in a more

> private setting.  i think integration (at least the way it has come about in

> the US) is the

> wrong path.  But it is pure hubris to demand equal scope of practice with

> MD's.  Wait

> til people start dying under our care and the malpractice hammer really

> comes down. 

> As has been stated here much more eloquently before, characterizing WM as a

> malevolent force is a pretty lame offense and a non-existent defense when it

> comes

> to our regulatory status.

>

A big part of the scope of MD's is knowing when to refer and how to make that

decision. I think our profession is capable of that, or can be. In my

opinion, it has to do more with ego and when we can let others participate in

our

patients care. If we have little training, hopefuly we have an ego to match and

do a lot of referring for most everything without knowing what is going on at

all. If we are better trained, we just refer more specifically, wasting less

time and patient money. All the time, we are treating to our best ability. In my

view, it has more to do with the freedom to see patients who wish to see us

without the interference of someone who may well choose to provide treatment

that will expand or extend their suffering, even if it is due to that providers

ignorance or chosen blinders.

DAvid Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is an important topic that needs to be addressed. You can learn from the

experience the Chiropractors have gone thru.

 

I graduated from Los Angles College of Chiropractic and also from Samra

University of Oriental Medicine in Los Angles.

 

Western Medicine has finally some what accepted Chiropractic, in a sense the

Chiropractic profession fell between the the cracks. It is not always defined as

alternative medicine but its also not completely accepted as a part of Western

medicine.

 

I believe a large part of the reason we have finally somewhat been accepted by

the Western MD's is our effectiveness for treating low back pain.

 

In my opinion this has not been the best for the profession because in a sense,

certain members and organizations of the Chiropractic profession are excited to

finally been accepted by western medicine and to be paid by the insurance

companies.

 

The problem with this is we are being put into a system for treating only a few

aspects of a wide range of things that can be treated with spinal manipulation,

etc.

 

If the practioners of TCM and Acupuncture are not careful, I feel this will

also happen.

 

Right now we are not a real threat to western medicine because we are " good for

pain " .

 

What will happen once western medicine starts to notice that we are getting

either the same or even better results with the same illnesses that they are

treating.

 

In my opinion this is what will happen.

 

Western Medicine will educate the media who in turn educates the public about

how unsafe and dangerous TCM and acupuncture is for any disorder or condition

other than pain.

 

Or they will take the TCM and acupuncture and " improve it to a higher standard "

that only western medicine is now better to treat.

 

The other problem that I see is happening in the TCM arena is a division in the

profession in regards to which style of treatment is best. Five elements,

8-principles, TCM, Classical, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, you get the point.

 

This is an area the Chiropractic profession really screwed up with. Instead of

uniting ourselves to become a strong profession to help fight against the system

and educate the politicians, media and the public concerning the effectivenss of

Chiropractic we as a profession were to busy fighting amongst oursselves as to:

(who had the better treatment, who should be treated, what kinds of conditions

should be treated, etc " .

 

So as a result of this and personal bias's there were different associations

formed. This caused contention and lack of unity within the profession.

 

Finally after all these years the profession is starting to become more united

to address the issues that effects the profession as a whole.

 

Hopefully the practioners of TCM and Acupuncture will learn from these terrible

mistakes and become unified in order to protect the profession and to educate

the politicians, media and the public.

 

The other thing would be to fight any others that want to infringe upon our

profession without the proper education requirements. I always had an interest

in acupuncture and decided to go back to college and receive my masters degree

in TCM.

 

Although others find it easier to take the easy way out with a short course of

acupuncture. Actually I have been helping the Utah Association of Acupuncturist

to fight the Chiropractors from doing Acupuncture.

 

This has alway amazed me. When it comes to spinal manipulation, it is my opinion

that the best trained profession is the Chiropractic profession due to the fact

we spend a large part of our training doing this in school.

 

When it comes to other professions who want to do spinal manipulation, the

Chiropractor's become outraged by this and do all they can so that others are

unable to do this. I totally agree with this...

 

But what makes certain Chiropractors feel they can do the same thing to another

profession (Acupuncturist's) with a total lack of respect for the training that

profession has gone thru.

 

Now be sure not to group all the Chiropractors together because there are those

who also disagree with what a few are doing in the profession.

 

 

I can train any of you in 100-200 hours in spinal manipulation.

 

Does this mean that you will be proficient, that you will not hurt others, that

you are better the the Chiropractors, I don't think so.

 

I am proud to be a Chiropractor but just as proud to be a practioner of TCM.

 

In reality, the public would do well receving treatment in both professions.

 

Now for my last point, do not get all caught up in letting insurance reimburse

us for our treatment. There are both advantages and disadvantages.

 

The biggest long term problem is all the disadvantages. Eventually the insurance

company will tell you how to practice and what you can and cannot do to receive

payment plus all the paper work. In the long run, its not worth it.

 

Remember, people pay money for what they want, but not what they need...

 

I see this in my own practice. A patient wants to come in for treatment because

of severe head heads, etc. but they just cannot afford it. But at they same

time they can afford to go to Starbuck 1-2 times per day, purchase the brand new

car, etc.

 

I also try to be compassionate for those patients that really have hardships and

make it affordable for them.

 

We should not discredit ourselves as a profession to feel lucky that we finally

got insurance coverage for Acupuncture.

 

Alternative, Integrated Medicine need to stand on it own and not get caught up

in the insurance coverage. You can see what is happening now with coverage to

other professions and its not only the HMO's that are doing this.

 

It is happening to the Medical Doctor's, Chiropractors, Physical therapist's,

etc.

 

I would like to say in closing that it would be great to both the profession and

the public if we become more of the Integrated Medicine movement, but it needs

to be on terms as a profession and not be dictated to us by other professions or

associations.

 

All my best,

 

Brian N Hardy, DC, LAc, DACBN, CCN

 

 

 

acuman1 wrote:

In a message dated 5/14/04 9:01:51 AM, kampo36 writes:

 

 

> I am no proponent of integration; i worked for years in a busy rheumatology

> practice

> with physicians and i quit because i thought i could render much better care

> in a more

> private setting. i think integration (at least the way it has come about in

> the US) is the

> wrong path. But it is pure hubris to demand equal scope of practice with

> MD's. Wait

> til people start dying under our care and the malpractice hammer really

> comes down.

> As has been stated here much more eloquently before, characterizing WM as a

> malevolent force is a pretty lame offense and a non-existent defense when it

> comes

> to our regulatory status.

>

A big part of the scope of MD's is knowing when to refer and how to make that

decision. I think our profession is capable of that, or can be. In my

opinion, it has to do more with ego and when we can let others participate in

our

patients care. If we have little training, hopefuly we have an ego to match and

do a lot of referring for most everything without knowing what is going on at

all. If we are better trained, we just refer more specifically, wasting less

time and patient money. All the time, we are treating to our best ability. In my

view, it has more to do with the freedom to see patients who wish to see us

without the interference of someone who may well choose to provide treatment

that will expand or extend their suffering, even if it is due to that providers

ignorance or chosen blinders.

DAvid Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi David and Andrea,

 

Thank you for your thoughts below, David. I include Andrea here because of her

heartfelt comments. Like Phil I'm not able to post much due to many upcoming

assignments. But I'm reading and enjoying.

 

The irony that you both must realize and see clearly is that MDs are in a

bizarre position of late wherein they can not refer out to one another. That's

they can not refer " out of their system " . Kaiser is really the worst of this.

Kaiser hires a few really good people and then wrecks them by giving them

assignments that they can't hope to deal with. And, of course, they can't refer

out of their system. Both of you have made comments that made me think of this.

 

I feel strongly at this time that MDs as well as CM practitioners are both

enduring hard times. I have a vast cohort of MD friends as well as CM

practitioner friends. I must say that my MD friends express a generally more

desperate tone when referring to their professional situation as of about 1998.

That's when many lost hospital privileges ... they had to start " paying " the

hospitals to see their patients. I haven't been outside of CA much in the

recent past so perhaps this strangeness is more local. Maybe it's just the

people I know also, but my sense is that most of the MDs I know would be happy

indeed to associate with a CM practitioner. They would be interested in

broadening their clinic's scope of practice through associations.

 

I can see how Robert Hayden's presence was appreciated. I ultimately agree with

Robert that integration as things currently stand is problematic. But in

keeping with Z'ev's thoughts a CM hospital would " mature " the current cohort of

practitioners ... even if were not truly an acute care facility, but more of a

chronic care facility with beds ... wherein teaching professors could take in

true interns.

 

Just a quick business-oriented end of weekend thought.

 

Respectfully,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

acuman1

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:24 PM

Re: A sincere proposal that may change all our lives.

 

 

 

In a message dated 5/14/04 9:01:51 AM, kampo36 writes:

 

 

> I am no proponent of integration; i worked for years in a busy rheumatology

practice with physicians and i quit because i thought i could render much better

care in a more private setting. i think integration (at least the way it has

come about in the US) is the wrong path. But it is pure hubris to demand equal

scope of practice with MD's. Wait til people start dying under our care and the

malpractice hammer really

> comes down. As has been stated here much more eloquently before,

characterizing WM as a malevolent force is a pretty lame offense and a

non-existent defense when it comes

> to our regulatory status.

>

A big part of the scope of MD's is knowing when to refer and how to make that

decision. I think our profession is capable of that, or can be. In my

opinion, it has to do more with ego and when we can let others participate in

our

patients care. If we have little training, hopefuly we have an ego to match

and

do a lot of referring for most everything without knowing what is going on at

all. If we are better trained, we just refer more specifically, wasting less

time and patient money. All the time, we are treating to our best ability. In

my

view, it has more to do with the freedom to see patients who wish to see us

without the interference of someone who may well choose to provide treatment

that will expand or extend their suffering, even if it is due to that

providers

ignorance or chosen blinders.

DAvid Molony