Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 heylaurag wrote: > Hi All, > > In thinking about the recents posts about how poorly research has > generally been conducted on acupuncture and how that tends to then > reflect badly on acupuncture in the media and the public eye Hi Laura! We are organized into a number of small organizations which are not in very good communication with each other, I am afraid. While still a student ten years ago I organized the Sun Health Foundation, Inc. and obtained a US tax-exempt status. This organization will be the custodian of the research that comes out of the project I am working on. One of the main drawbacks to writing for publication is that people are looking for whiz-bang, short pieces with a lot of flashy pictures. The majority of college graduates read at a grade school level if they ever read. Anything we write on TCM at a professional level will not find a large enough audience to justify the cost of dead tree publication. That said, we could set up an Internet " journal " with the idea that a peer committee would review any article before it got on. That would still cost something, but not as much as a paper journal. But what do you do after the first month or so when everyone on the peer committee gets too busy to do it any more? You would also have to pay the webmaster, it is a lot of work to keep up a website, and keep it interesting. The acupuncture journals I get are all advertising, and the articles sometimes push products as well. It would be nice to have something like you are talking about. However, I think the webmaster would have to hyperlink every word over the 7th grade level to a pop-up definition if we wanted a broad audience. There are 2,800,000 websites (per Google) that address the issue " acupuncture " , readers can go anywhere. I hardly get any readers on my website, I am probably on page 100,000 or so of the search. <http://www.pete-theisen.com/index.php> Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Larura, I agree wholeheartedly. It would seem that in every venue we as a profession are strapped down by a lack of cohesive focus. Although there is much research coming out of China it is generally viewed with scrutiny, and so very often its methods are questionable. The difficulty, as always is where does the money come from, that is the fundamental. I honestly am not that optimistic. Take the professions lack of political power. In California, the state that " legalised " the profession ther was the action towards the discontinuance of workers comp came to both the chiropractors and TCM practitioners, but as we had no lobby (there were the few that were involved and thankfully saved what little they could), there was no strength in contrast to the chiropractors lobby that successfully halted absolutely any action against it. This lack of strength is apparent in every facet of the medicine and it is truly unfortunate. Without strong research there is no voice, without strong voice there is no research. In TCM schools there is very little emphasis on research. In fact we are not required to write whatsoever. All the tests are based in the books that are required for Board examinations, with very little prodding to investigate modern research or discussion. Without this as a base, i see little to truly stimulate the practice to raise itself from a profession that takes up the allopathic slack to a profession that stands on own two feet. It must start at the schools, that is the bottom line in my opinion. The bit of optimism is that with the attempt to get Medi-care and the onset of PhD programs the tide may be changing, albeit slowly. One hopes that as the profession continues to grow it will rely not only on it's patient's testimonials for validation. Lastly, there is the continual difficulty of explanation. Western Medicine prides itself on the supposed (and often illusory) genesis of dysfunction to support the mitigation of chemical application. Acupuncture can not do this, until this is available, i don't see research truly bringing the medicine into the 21st century. It is unfortunate that in China one simply does not question, but i feel it is to the medicine's benefit that in America we most certainly do (though are not generally encouraged to in school). We must look beyond the meridian system, or prove it. One or the other, there is no other option in my view. Simply stating that it works because these invisible lines are at work is enough for empirical observation, but certainly not for research. Tymothy Research/The Media/Organization Hi All, In thinking about the recents posts about how poorly research has generally been conducted on acupuncture and how that tends to then reflect badly on acupuncture in the media and the public eye, I naively put the blame on the national acupuncture organizations for not doing more---and was put in my place about that when it was explained to me that they simply do not have the resources. So I was wondering if acupuncturists would support an organization that was devoted strictly to educating researchers and the public about acupuncture? Would you be willing to pay yearly fees to such an organization? I sure would. The media is a powerful force to effect change---but with the wrong information it is also a dangerous force to spread myths. We need to be out there explaining concepts like the need for " Differential Diagnosis " in research, and how without it the outcome of research on acupuncture is always going to be an invalid measure. At the same time, as the public becomes more savvy about these ideas it will make our jobs easier because we will not have to do so much explaining to our patients. Also, perhaps fewer patients would stop after only a couple visits if they are not yet getting results if it became a part of the public knowledge that acupuncture is not like taking a pill and having symptoms instantly disappear (although, it CAN be that quick, which is hard to explain). If this organization included members who were acupuncturists that were also skilled writers who were paid a certain amount per article along with members who were paid to do what it takes to get these articles published, we'd be getting somewhere, don't you think? Any thoughts anyone? Any closet writers out there? Anyone savvy about the process of getting things published? I would be interested in getting involved in this process. Also, it would enable us to have a venue to publish our own research, such as the type of research that Pete has been talking about (and was talked about under the Research posts). Feel free to email me personally or to respond to this post if you are interested, or if you have thoughts/opinions/ideas about this. Thanks! Laura " Everything can be resolved with willingness and love. Love is the ultimate healer and liberator, because only love is vast enough to embrace its opposite. " G. Hendricks -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders wherever you are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 There are other options, Tymothy. The first is to try to understand exactly what the Chinese meant by jing-luo, channels and network vessels. For that, we need to study the classical literature. Confirmation will not come by researching what is not understood in the first place. And, we will not go 'beyond' channels by either mere speculation or by substituting a biomedical replacement for them. On Jun 30, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Tymothy wrote: > We must look beyond the > meridian system, or prove it. One or the other, there is no other > option > in my view. Simply stating that it works because these invisible lines > are at work is enough for empirical observation, but certainly not for > research. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Tymothy, Excellent points about: 1) Lack of professional support in politics both in CA and the country at large. 2) Issues over foreign research. 3) Need for OM schools to introduce research into curricula. 4) Proof of channels Solutions to the above: 1) get more involved by phone and email with our legislators maybe even create a network to lobby politicians with email petitions. MoveOn.org has been very successful with this concept. 2) Focus on the good in the research as we can all find fault with ANY research, even if conducted in the US. I think more than anything those in denial will always refuse to accept it as it is outside their reality. I do think that we tend to be more critical of our own profession more so than others. I have not heard any public refutation of a Chinese study, does not mean it does not happen. 3) There is such a need for school involvement that it saddens me to say few get involved. The reasons can be many and appear motivated by greed. There is a need for good schools with active involvement, anyone know of any? 4) This last one peaks my interest as I happen to think this has now been successful. Korean research into biological structures that answer many of the questions into how and why can be explained. This is monumental yet there are still many who would rather have us stuck in the stone age. I think professional recognition of this important research is what can help us regain ops in our society. Our country is being torn between the ultra-conservatives and everyone else. Since most of us do not qualify as the first group then we better get to know the second. As science is a big interest in moving healthcare of the nation forward, we should be using this tool to help our cause as well. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Zev has a good point about classical understanding. For many of us, we have an idea of what it is that we use everyday in some form or fashion and describe this to our patient's as well. What maybe often described as qi is equated with some type of energy. The problem with our reliance on a general description is that some agree and others do not. Additionally perplexing, is the larger stage of healthcare utilization and how then these terms (ie diagnostics/treatments) are seen by them. We have been largely accepted due to various modern studies mostly related to pain. If it were not for them we would all see less interest from the public, insurances and the medical mainstream. I respectfully disagree with Zev on the issue of the jing luo and have openly asked everyone out there to supply a list of factors that delineate or define what makes a channel. For the purpose of dialogue, we can then use our own mental abilities to decide for ourselves what research might actually show support for the jing luo. I happen to think the work done by Bonghan, Soh, Vernajoule etc can help us greatly to become much more understood and accepted. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe >Chinese Medicine >Chinese Medicine >Re: Research/The Media/Organization >Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:40:40 -0700 > >There are other options, Tymothy. The first is to try to understand >exactly what the Chinese meant by jing-luo, channels and network >vessels. For that, we need to study the classical literature. >Confirmation will not come by researching what is not understood in >the first place. And, we will not go 'beyond' channels by either >mere speculation or by substituting a biomedical replacement for them. > > >On Jun 30, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Tymothy wrote: > > > We must look beyond the > > meridian system, or prove it. One or the other, there is no other > > option > > in my view. Simply stating that it works because these invisible lines > > are at work is enough for empirical observation, but certainly not for > > research. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Acknowledged. My original point in this thread was that since the Chinese relied on and developed the concept of channels for some 2000 years, we shouldn't be in a hurry to disregard it or 'prove' it until we have done textual research into how the Chinese themselves viewed the channels and used them in medicine. On Jun 30, 2005, at 2:08 PM, mike Bowser wrote: > I respectfully disagree with Zev on the issue of the jing luo and have > openly asked everyone out there to supply a list of factors that > delineate > or define what makes a channel. For the purpose of dialogue, we > can then > use our own mental abilities to decide for ourselves what research > might > actually show support for the jing luo. I happen to think the work > done by > Bonghan, Soh, Vernajoule etc can help us greatly to become much more > understood and accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 From an academic point of view, I agree with you. Just an FYI. That idea is what originally motivated Dr. Kim Bonghan in the first place. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe >Chinese Medicine >Chinese Medicine >Re: Research/The Media/Organization >Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:04:26 -0700 > >Acknowledged. My original point in this thread was that since the >Chinese relied on and developed the concept of channels for some 2000 >years, we shouldn't be in a hurry to disregard it or 'prove' it until >we have done textual research into how the Chinese themselves viewed >the channels and used them in medicine. > > >On Jun 30, 2005, at 2:08 PM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > I respectfully disagree with Zev on the issue of the jing luo and have > > openly asked everyone out there to supply a list of factors that > > delineate > > or define what makes a channel. For the purpose of dialogue, we > > can then > > use our own mental abilities to decide for ourselves what research > > might > > actually show support for the jing luo. I happen to think the work > > done by > > Bonghan, Soh, Vernajoule etc can help us greatly to become much more > > understood and accepted. > > > > 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.