KWC invite

[Guest guest]

Dear Larry,

 

This kind of antagonism is not necessary at all. Ken has done alot to get the word out, and has been very helpful in dealing with government bodies and pertinent information.

 

I'm sure you'll remember that I WAS IN on the beginings of this over 6 years ago, and in the past have contributed both time and money, and I for one appreciate Ken's efforts and watchful eye. I think I perceive correctly that Ken's main worries are the threats to our Freedoms and I see no reason why he should apologize. By not doing our due diligence and by allowing a bill to pass that is not only a compromise of these Freedoms, but will lead to an eventual monopoly is only slitting our own throats. I agree with Ken's observations and concerns.

 

After this last debacle, I feel I must withdraw all of my original support for ANY bill having to do with licensure whatsoever. From this point forward, I will be speaking out against all Naturopathic licensure in New Mexico. Compromising, just for the purpose of being "Grandfathered" into someone's monopoly, just doesn't cut the mustard with me and never has. There are a future generations of Naturopaths that must be taken into consideration here.

 

At this time I can support New Mexico SB 18 ONLY!

 

I am shocked you would treat a fellow Naturopath in this way with so little justification.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ian

 

 

Ian "Doc" Shillington N.D.727-447-5282Doc

 

-

Lawrence Johnson

email ; MDSND ; boydlandry ; drsus ; arobillard ; suziqbyr ; botan ; donaldson ; Novahomeopathic ; cbjb7 ; perfectadjustments ; naturecarern ; drdeannd ; info ; askdrdavedc ; BIODOC ; Forevrnwlywds ; medicinecave ; gkeanna3 ; seva ; hilariodc ; hpeiper ; Doc ; janaai ; Cranial7 ; jeffgoin ; romigj ; kandice_cochrane ; kwc ; drlarryjohnson ; Lightharmonics ; jaioqi ; Unwyndings ; mkdavi2 ; dr.marilyn ; mkh1139 ; botija687 ; mspot ; michelemorgan ; hlbiz ; philji ; LQUESADA ; rsteinhoff ; raynln ; rmoreynd ; rockalu ; dpoli2 ; anu505050 ; shogun10

Monday, March 05, 2007 10:54 AM

KWC invite

Dear sir,I tried to read through this thing but could not do soin one sitting. Frankly it was boring. What you seemto fail to realize is that it is nothing more thanyour own self - centered take and no matter what yourintention - it did create animosity - especially withthe very large group of naturopaths who have worked onnaturopathic licensure through compromise and selfsacrifice over the lasst 6 years. The real question is - if this is not what you want -WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT? Unilateral, destructivecriticism is simply non productive Negativity. Whetheryou realize it or not - that is offensive - andcreates animosity.Some of your stuff is well presented - the SB 18Judiciary Committee hearing was well reported by you -but at the same time the Public Affairs Committeeestaff referred to you as a pest, a pain and a loosegun. What ever your intention - that is offensive -and creates animosity.I have no idea what motivates you but I can tell youthat your actions so far are appreciated by the veryfew. That's not to say that you appear to have noapparent value - only that, in my opinion, it iscurrently misdirected. Naturopaths are, by nature,extremely independant, defensive and introverted. Theyare that way because they are afraid of going to jailor suffering extreme loss and legal costs forpracticing - whatever - without a license. Hencelicensure - Duh! Anyone can scream the word Fire and get attention -you got attention because we were too disorganized ortoo busy individually to make ourselves present tothrow truth on your fear. You could be big help if you would only submityourself to the greater Genius of the MAJORITY. Manyof us don't like what you did but we respect yourright to do it. We also believe that we are betterserved by airing our shortcomings privately andsomehow finding consensus rather than holding ourdiverse practices and beliefs up for ridicule in thepublic theatre of the Roundhouse.We are meeting on May 20 and 21 at Sandia Resort. Sendme your address and I'll see that you get a flyer.Come and make yourself heard and listen - if you dare.Bring a thick skin.Dr. Larry Johnson--- ken winston caine <naturedoc wrote:> Hi:> > It was not my intention to create animosity on the> naturopathy> list. Rather to express my sincere feelings about> the need for a> highly inclusive naturopathy bill for New Mexico.> And for open> discussion of it, using all available technology,> including:> > - Recorded teleconferences with audio posted later> onsite for> download by anyone at any time who might have missed> the call.> > - An online wiki and content management system> allowing anyone> interested to contribute to the development of the> project and> dialogue -- and on their own time.> > - A listserv.> > My position is that *we* should not adopt the kind> of exclusivity> that the AANP proposes in state after state and that> we all end> up resenting and fighting against. That is, that we> should not> try to *own* naturopathy and natural healing and> legally limit> its practice to a select few practitioners who meet> some highly> arbitrary qualifications. Rather, we would make room> for all, at> all skill and training levels, including those> eclectically> trained.> > I did not see that in the naturopathy bill proposed> this year.> What I saw was even more exclusive than the '03> bill, even though> it contained much of the same language.> > And I continue to think there is some> misunderstanding here about> the Sunrise Act and the Uniform Licensing Act.> > It was explained to me a year ago by a person on> this list that> the Sunrise Act requires all people offering any> form of> alternative health services to be licensed. But it> has been> explained to me as rather the opposite by> legislators and by the> lobbyist who represents NMCAAMP and some others in> state> government.> > My understanding is that the Sunrise Act essentially> admonishes> the Legislature to avoid over-legislating and not to> feel that it> needs to create laws governing matters just because> they are not> now governed by any particular laws or boards.> > And two members of the Judiciary Committee at the> hearing I> attended this year made comments to the effect that> the Uniform> Licensing Act currently does not govern unlicensed> alternative> and complementary health practices -- unless the> practitioners> are engaged in activities that clearly fall within> the scope of> one of the established licensing boards.> > Now, I know, the medical practices act's definition> of> "practicing medicine" is so broad that it could be> interpreted> that virtually anyone offering any kind of healing> advice is> "practicing medicine." But, interestingly, the> Judiciary> Committee didn't see it that way.> > Much to explore and discuss and I'm still not clear> on why some> (many?) naturopaths on this list seem so inclined> toward a> licensing act that would exclude others from> counseling and> teaching natural health modalities.> > And I hope, in the months to come, as we set up a> good,> accessible, open communications system, that we can> clarify and> define the reasoning for -- and against -- that, and> any other> options. And set forth the arguments coherently,> authoritatively,> in an online reference document for all to review> and/or> challenge and correct.> > RE: The mailing list. It's a bit of a mess. I am> not at all> clear as to who on the list I have been compiling> for four years> is from NMPNM. I've gone through my email history,> as best I can,> (I've used two computers between '03 and '06 and> only have one> available now) and it appears I've been> communicating> occasionally with many on this current list since> sometime in> 2004. I am under the impression that I am> communicating with> several groups, including the NM Coalition,> Albuquerque> Non-Licensed Alternative Therapy Practitioners, New> Mexico> Naturopaths, and New Mexico Health Freedom leaders,> and some> kinesiologists, homeopaths, herbalists and Reiki> folk and others.> > Not sure when I got added to NMPNM. And actually> that acronym> never registered with me. That's why I asked> Katherine Whited> what it denotes. I don't know who put me on the> list.> > When I returned to New Mexico in '02, I contacted> the national> organizations that I was associated with who monitor> restrictive> naturopathic licensing activity and asked them to> put me into> contact with any New Mexico chapters and to alert me> to any> unfriendly legislation in the works.> > And in '03 I began emailing various New Mexico> holistic> practitioners and associations about whether there> was any> interest in developing a full-disclosure,> informed-consent Health> Freedom act here, similar to Minnesota's. And asked> to be added> to mailing lists and listservs. And asked people to> forward to me> email addresses of people who might be interested> that I could> contact.> > And I gathered email addresses every chance I got > from all with> whom I communicated.> > One list that communicated with me had quite a few > names on it,> used a non-blinded list ,and I can see in my sent> items folder> that I used "reply all" when I engaged in the> discussions and> that usually I added additional addresses in the cc:> field by> copying the mails to others who had expressed> interest in either> naturopathic right to practice or health freedom> legislation.> > Wasn't until late 2005, after being properly scolded> for sending> an unblinded email that I cleaned the bounces off> the list and> blinded it in the few mails that *I* originated. But> still, if> replying to something that came to me from an> unblinded list, I> hit "reply all." And did that this year when the> dialogue> developed after we received the email about SB 513> being> introduced.> > I absolutely agree with the suggestion for setting> up a listserv,> which would make communication much neater and would> eliminate> Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Autos' Green Center.http://autos./green_center/