ABORM, Specialty Boards, and Chinese Medicine Tools

September 4, 2007

Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

-------------------------------

Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just conducted an

interesting series of interviews with many of our field's leading

minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT www.chinesemedicinetools.com

and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

-----------------------------

A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start piling on,

about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of the

interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty boards.

From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews with a few

people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously expressed

their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined to be

interviewed by CMT.

September 4, 2007

With all due respect, this is an unfair statement on behalf of the

opponents of ABORM to be interviewed. We were mutually unable to find

a suitable time to meet your deadline, we did not decline your

requests. Caroline

, " thecornerstoneclinic "

<thecornerstoneclinic wrote:

>

> Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

> -------------------------------

> Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just conducted

an

> interesting series of interviews with many of our field's leading

> minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

>

> To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT

www.chinesemedicinetools.com

> and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

>

> -----------------------------

> A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start piling

on,

> about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of the

> interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty boards.

>

> From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews with a

few

> people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously expressed

> their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined to

be

> interviewed by CMT.

>

September 4, 2007

Caroline,

My intention was to let folks know that the coverage on the CMT site

is disproportional and strongly favors ABORM and specialty boards.

But this disproportionate coverage does not inherently suggest bias,

as dissenting opinions were given the opportunity to come forward

and were given a forum.

Scheduling concerns aside - I want to let people know that opponents

were invited to voice their opinions, and that CMT did not set out

to present a one-sided perspective.

David Karchmer

, " cradicepoli "

<CarolineRadice wrote:

>

> With all due respect, this is an unfair statement on behalf of the

> opponents of ABORM to be interviewed. We were mutually unable to

find

> a suitable time to meet your deadline, we did not decline your

> requests. Caroline

>

> , " thecornerstoneclinic "

> <thecornerstoneclinic@> wrote:

> >

> > Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

> > -------------------------------

> > Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just

conducted

> an

> > interesting series of interviews with many of our field's

leading

> > minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

> >

> > To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT

> www.chinesemedicinetools.com

> > and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

> >

> > -----------------------------

> > A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start piling

> on,

> > about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of

the

> > interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty

boards.

> >

> > From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews with

a

> few

> > people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously

expressed

> > their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined

to

> be

> > interviewed by CMT.

> >

>

September 4, 2007

David,

Are you a representative of AAAOM? If yes, will you share your title

with us so that we may, as you suggest, " frame this issue properly. "

I think it is important to frame this issue properly. For me it is

not about eliminating Specialty Boards, the issue is whether AAAOM

should give its " seal of approval " to any specific Board, there will

be many others who will want to create boards and what criteria will

determine whether AAAOM grants its approval? This is the issue for

me.

Tt is my feeling AAAOM can support specialty boards, but not approve

of anyone in particular, it will cause lots of turbulence.

I am willing to discuss the topic in detail, as long as we stay on

point.

regards,

david

September 4, 2007

Mr. Twicken, (Not to be overly formal, but because my name is David

too - let's avoid confusion)

Have you had an opportunity to listen to the podcasted interviews on

the CMT site?

This seems to me a good starting point for those of us who want to

engage in discussion about ABORM, or specialty boards at large.

There is a lot of foundational material for this kind of discussion

already laid there by myself, Bob Flaws, Michael Tierra, Ray Rubio,

Randine Lewis, Kevin Ergil, and Lorne Browne, to name a few.

David Karchmer

--- In

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

<flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> I am not a representative of AAAOM. My name is david twicken.

>

> Chinese Medicine , " David

> Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> >

> > David,

> >

> > Are you a representative of AAAOM? If yes, will you share your

> title

> > with us so that we may, as you suggest, " frame this issue

> properly. "

> >

> > --------------------------------

-

> >

> > I think it is important to frame this issue properly. For me it

is

> > not about eliminating Specialty Boards, the issue is whether

AAAOM

> > should give its " seal of approval " to any specific Board, there

> will

> > be many others who will want to create boards and what criteria

> will

> > determine whether AAAOM grants its approval? This is the issue

for

> > me.

> >

> > Tt is my feeling AAAOM can support specialty boards, but not

> approve

> > of anyone in particular, it will cause lots of turbulence.

> >

> > I am willing to discuss the topic in detail, as long as we stay

on

> > point.

> >

> > regards,

> >

> > david

> >

>

September 4, 2007

Mr. Karcher,

The problem with this specialty board is that it seems to reek of elitism.

Is this ABORM trying to set up a standard and suggest that other

acupuncturists who are not ABORM certified cannot treat infertility? Who

set ABORM members as an authority on infertility?

Also, another issue is liability - since OB/Gyn is one of Western Medicine's

highest liabilities, would ABORM members also have to pay higher insurance

premiums?

Best regards,

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD

chusauli

On 9/4/07, David Karchmer <acuprof wrote:

>

> Mr. Twicken, (Not to be overly formal, but because my name is David

> too - let's avoid confusion)

>

> Have you had an opportunity to listen to the podcasted interviews on

> the CMT site?

>

> This seems to me a good starting point for those of us who want to

> engage in discussion about ABORM, or specialty boards at large.

>

> There is a lot of foundational material for this kind of discussion

> already laid there by myself, Bob Flaws, Michael Tierra, Ray Rubio,

> Randine Lewis, Kevin Ergil, and Lorne Browne, to name a few.

>

> David Karchmer

>

> --- In

>

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> " flyingstarsfengshui "

> <flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

> >

> > I am not a representative of AAAOM. My name is david twicken.

> >

> > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> " David

> > Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> > >

> > > David,

> > >

> > > Are you a representative of AAAOM? If yes, will you share your

> > title

> > > with us so that we may, as you suggest, " frame this issue

> > properly. "

> > >

> > > -------------------------

> -

> > >

> > > I think it is important to frame this issue properly. For me it

> is

> > > not about eliminating Specialty Boards, the issue is whether

> AAAOM

> > > should give its " seal of approval " to any specific Board, there

> > will

> > > be many others who will want to create boards and what criteria

> > will

> > > determine whether AAAOM grants its approval? This is the issue

> for

> > > me.

> > >

> > > Tt is my feeling AAAOM can support specialty boards, but not

> > approve

> > > of anyone in particular, it will cause lots of turbulence.

> > >

> > > I am willing to discuss the topic in detail, as long as we stay

> on

> > > point.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > >

> > > david

> > >

> >

>

September 4, 2007

Mr. Twicken,

Do you support the national certification of acupuncturists at large?

Or would you like to see the NCCAOM abolished as a certifying agency?

I am trying to understand your position. Would you classify the

NCCAOM and the national board examination process as " an

organization like AAAOM to " certify " or give authenticty of our

industry? "

And, if you DO support the national certification of acupuncturists,

how do you feel that certification of specializations within the

field differs?

If you do NOT support the national certification of acupuncturists,

please share why you hold that position.

David Karchmer

--- In

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

<flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> David:

>

> I support Specialty Boards, they are just groups of people that

> present their experience in courses, I support this and encourage

> this.

>

> What I don't support is using an imparital, member based

> organization like AAAOM to " certify " or give authenticty of our

> industry to a specific company or Board. If you would like to

> discuss this particular issue great, but this is what I'm most

> interested in. So as I stated, if anybody wants to discuss this

> points great.

>

> regards,

> david

>

> Chinese Medicine , " David

> Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> >

> > Mr. Twicken, (Not to be overly formal, but because my name is

> David

> > too - let's avoid confusion)

> >

> > Have you had an opportunity to listen to the podcasted

interviews

> on

> > the CMT site?

> >

> > This seems to me a good starting point for those of us who want

to

> > engage in discussion about ABORM, or specialty boards at large.

> >

> > There is a lot of foundational material for this kind of

> discussion

> > already laid there by myself, Bob Flaws, Michael Tierra, Ray

> Rubio,

> > Randine Lewis, Kevin Ergil, and Lorne Browne, to name a few.

> >

> > David Karchmer

> >

> > --- In

> >

>

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

> > <flyingstarsfengshui@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I am not a representative of AAAOM. My name is david twicken.

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine , " David

> > > Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > David,

> > > >

> > > > Are you a representative of AAAOM? If yes, will you share

your

> > > title

> > > > with us so that we may, as you suggest, " frame this issue

> > > properly. "

> > > >

> > > > ----------------------------

--

> --

> > -

> > > >

> > > > I think it is important to frame this issue properly. For me

> it

> > is

> > > > not about eliminating Specialty Boards, the issue is whether

> > AAAOM

> > > > should give its " seal of approval " to any specific Board,

> there

> > > will

> > > > be many others who will want to create boards and what

> criteria

> > > will

> > > > determine whether AAAOM grants its approval? This is the

issue

> > for

> > > > me.

> > > >

> > > > Tt is my feeling AAAOM can support specialty boards, but not

> > > approve

> > > > of anyone in particular, it will cause lots of turbulence.

> > > >

> > > > I am willing to discuss the topic in detail, as long as we

> stay

> > on

> > > > point.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > >

> > > > david

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

September 4, 2007

Please bear in mind that it is unfair to categorize ABORM opponents

as " declining " requests, and also untrue. We were unable to find

mutual times to conduct such interview requests in the time frame you

allotted. Thanks Caroline

Chinese Medicine , " David Karchmer "

<acuprof wrote:

>

> Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

> -------------------------------

> Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just conducted

an

> interesting series of interviews with many of our field's leading

> minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

>

> To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT

www.chinesemedicinetools.com

> and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

>

> -----------------------------

> A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start piling

on,

> about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of the

> interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty boards.

>

> From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews with a

few

> people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously expressed

> their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined to

be

> interviewed by CMT.

>

September 4, 2007

David,

You have some pretty stringent criteria that determine your

willingness to engage in a discussion.

In your initial post, you said, " I am willing to discuss the topic

in detail, as long as we stay on point. "

And now you state that my " comparison is Apples to Oranges and

honestly, I do not feel it is relevant to this duscussion. "

I must say, it is hard to conduct a meaningful dialogue with you

when the parameters of the conversation are so closely controlled.

How about if I talk about what's important to me, and you comment on

what's important to you, and we'll leave it at that.

David Karchmer

--- In

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

<flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> Oh, please call me david.

>

> NCCAOM, to my understanding follows certain legal and regulatory

> guidelines, it is approved by NCAA and is accepted by certiain

State

> Board Licensing Agencies. AAAOM is a member organization. Your

> comparison is Apples to Oranges and honestly, I do not feel it is

> relevant to this duscussion.

>

> But you bring up a very good point. If your board wants to elevate

> themselves by obtaining authenticity or certification I suggest

you

> talk with NCCAOM or ACOM or state acupuncture boards or even

Chinese

> Medical Schools to obtain the " creditability " you seek, but not a

> member or industry organization.

>

> Hope I'm clear.

>

> Thanks,

>

> david

>

> Chinese Medicine , " David

> Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> >

> > Mr. Twicken,

> >

> > Do you support the national certification of acupuncturists at

> large?

> > Or would you like to see the NCCAOM abolished as a certifying

> agency?

> > I am trying to understand your position. Would you classify the

> > NCCAOM and the national board examination process as " an

> > organization like AAAOM to " certify " or give authenticty of our

> > industry? "

> >

> > And, if you DO support the national certification of

> acupuncturists,

> > how do you feel that certification of specializations within the

> > field differs?

> >

> > If you do NOT support the national certification of

> acupuncturists,

> > please share why you hold that position.

> >

> > David Karchmer

> > --- In

> >

>

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

> > <flyingstarsfengshui@> wrote:

> > >

> > > David:

> > >

> > > I support Specialty Boards, they are just groups of people

that

> > > present their experience in courses, I support this and

> encourage

> > > this.

> > >

> > > What I don't support is using an imparital, member based

> > > organization like AAAOM to " certify " or give authenticty of

our

> > > industry to a specific company or Board. If you would like to

> > > discuss this particular issue great, but this is what I'm most

> > > interested in. So as I stated, if anybody wants to discuss

this

> > > points great.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > > david

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine , " David

> > > Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Mr. Twicken, (Not to be overly formal, but because my name

is

> > > David

> > > > too - let's avoid confusion)

> > > >

> > > > Have you had an opportunity to listen to the podcasted

> > interviews

> > > on

> > > > the CMT site?

> > > >

> > > > This seems to me a good starting point for those of us who

> want

> > to

> > > > engage in discussion about ABORM, or specialty boards at

> large.

> > > >

> > > > There is a lot of foundational material for this kind of

> > > discussion

> > > > already laid there by myself, Bob Flaws, Michael Tierra, Ray

> > > Rubio,

> > > > Randine Lewis, Kevin Ergil, and Lorne Browne, to name a few.

> > > >

> > > > David Karchmer

> > > >

> > > > --- In

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

> > > > <flyingstarsfengshui@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > I am not a representative of AAAOM. My name is david

twicken.

> > > > >

> > > > > --- In

Chinese Medicine , " David

> > > > > Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > David,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Are you a representative of AAAOM? If yes, will you

share

> > your

> > > > > title

> > > > > > with us so that we may, as you suggest, " frame this

issue

> > > > > properly. "

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ------------------------

--

> --

> > --

> > > --

> > > > -

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think it is important to frame this issue properly.

For

> me

> > > it

> > > > is

> > > > > > not about eliminating Specialty Boards, the issue is

> whether

> > > > AAAOM

> > > > > > should give its " seal of approval " to any specific

Board,

> > > there

> > > > > will

> > > > > > be many others who will want to create boards and what

> > > criteria

> > > > > will

> > > > > > determine whether AAAOM grants its approval? This is the

> > issue

> > > > for

> > > > > > me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Tt is my feeling AAAOM can support specialty boards, but

> not

> > > > > approve

> > > > > > of anyone in particular, it will cause lots of

turbulence.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I am willing to discuss the topic in detail, as long as

we

> > > stay

> > > > on

> > > > > > point.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > regards,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > david

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

September 4, 2007

Caroline,

My intention was to let folks know that the coverage on the CMT site

is disproportional and strongly favors ABORM and specialty boards.

But this disproportionate coverage does not inherently suggest bias,

as dissenting opinions were given the opportunity to come forward

and were given a forum.

Scheduling concerns aside, I want to let people know that opponents

were invited to voice their opinions, and that CMT did not set out

tp present a one-sided perspective.

David Karchmer

Chinese Medicine , " cradicepoli "

<CarolineRadice wrote:

>

> Please bear in mind that it is unfair to categorize ABORM

opponents

> as " declining " requests, and also untrue. We were unable to find

> mutual times to conduct such interview requests in the time frame

you

> allotted. Thanks Caroline

>

> Chinese Medicine , " David

Karchmer "

> <acuprof@> wrote:

> >

> > Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

> > -------------------------------

> > Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just

conducted

> an

> > interesting series of interviews with many of our field's

leading

> > minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

> >

> > To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT

> www.chinesemedicinetools.com

> > and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

> >

> > -----------------------------

> > A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start piling

> on,

> > about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of

the

> > interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty

boards.

> >

> > From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews with

a

> few

> > people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously

expressed

> > their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined

to

> be

> > interviewed by CMT.

> >

>

September 5, 2007

Mr. Chu,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You make some interesting points.

I do not feel that ABORM " reeks of elitism " as you suggest.

This would be akin to saying that NCCAOM is elitist because it

requires acupuncturists to be educated and pass an exam in order to

practice acupuncture at all!!

How elitist is that to all the uneducated, untrained would-be

acupuncturists out there!?!?!

ABORM provides a minumum standard that ensures that Board Certified

Reproductive Acupuncturists understand the principles and concepts

surrounding reproductive medicine.

These are concepts that general acupuncturists DO NOT automatically

understand by virtue of their generalized training.

You ask, " Is this ABORM trying to set up a standard and suggest that

other acupuncturists who are not ABORM certified cannot treat

infertility? "

There are two answers to your question:

The first answer is, " No. " ABORM is NOT suggesting that those

acupuncturists who anr not ABORM certified cannot treat infertility.

In fact, there is absolutely nothing preventing any acupuncturist

from treating infertility, or even representing themselves as a

specialist in Reproductive Acupuncture. With ABORM certification,

this situation does not change in the least. Anyone (ABORM certified

or not) will still be free to practice Reproductive Oriental Medicine.

The second answer is a bit more complex. While ABORM does not forbid

non ABORM certified practitioners from practicing Reproductive

Oriental Medicine, it does set a standard that help to regulate the

quality and expertise of Reproductiver Specialists, and will help the

public to choose an acupuncturist based on these standards. So, in

that sense, the answer to your question is closer to a " yes, " insofar

as the formation of ABORM seems to tacitly suggest to the public that

there is a distinction among acupuncturists who are and are not board

certified specialists.

You ask, " Who set ABORM members as an authority on infertility? "

Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to direct you to

their website, www.aborm.org. If you read the bios of the board

members, I think you will agree that this is a very well qualified

group.

Again, thanks for your earnest questions. I hope that you will come

to support the efforts of the ABORM and that you will see its

benefits to the public and to our profession.

David Karchmer

-- In Chinese Medicine , " Robert Chu "

<chusauli wrote:

>

> Mr. Karcher,

>

> The problem with this specialty board is that it seems to reek of

elitism.

> Is this ABORM trying to set up a standard and suggest that other

> acupuncturists who are not ABORM certified cannot treat

infertility? Who

> set ABORM members as an authority on infertility?

>

> Also, another issue is liability - since OB/Gyn is one of Western

Medicine's

> highest liabilities, would ABORM members also have to pay higher

insurance

> premiums?

>

> Best regards,

>

> Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD

> chusauli

>

> On 9/4/07, David Karchmer <acuprof wrote:

> >

> > Mr. Twicken, (Not to be overly formal, but because my name is

David

> > too - let's avoid confusion)

> >

> > Have you had an opportunity to listen to the podcasted interviews

on

> > the CMT site?

> >

> > This seems to me a good starting point for those of us who want to

> > engage in discussion about ABORM, or specialty boards at large.

> >

> > There is a lot of foundational material for this kind of

discussion

> > already laid there by myself, Bob Flaws, Michael Tierra, Ray

Rubio,

> > Randine Lewis, Kevin Ergil, and Lorne Browne, to name a few.

> >

> > David Karchmer

> >

> > --- In

> >

Chinese Medicine <Traditional_Chinese_Medic

ine%40>,

> > " flyingstarsfengshui "

> > <flyingstarsfengshui@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I am not a representative of AAAOM. My name is david twicken.

> > >

> > > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Traditional_Chinese_Medic

ine%40>,

> > " David

> > > Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > David,

> > > >

> > > > Are you a representative of AAAOM? If yes, will you share your

> > > title

> > > > with us so that we may, as you suggest, " frame this issue

> > > properly. "

> > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > -

> > > >

> > > > I think it is important to frame this issue properly. For me

it

> > is

> > > > not about eliminating Specialty Boards, the issue is whether

> > AAAOM

> > > > should give its " seal of approval " to any specific Board,

there

> > > will

> > > > be many others who will want to create boards and what

criteria

> > > will

> > > > determine whether AAAOM grants its approval? This is the issue

> > for

> > > > me.

> > > >

> > > > Tt is my feeling AAAOM can support specialty boards, but not

> > > approve

> > > > of anyone in particular, it will cause lots of turbulence.

> > > >

> > > > I am willing to discuss the topic in detail, as long as we

stay

> > on

> > > > point.

> > > >

> > > > regards,

> > > >

> > > > david

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

September 8, 2007

caroline:

what happened to the ad? i thought it was to be in the most recently

published issue of acu today. did i misunderstand?

kb

On 9/4/07, cradicepoli <CarolineRadice wrote:

>

> Please bear in mind that it is unfair to categorize ABORM opponents

> as " declining " requests, and also untrue. We were unable to find

> mutual times to conduct such interview requests in the time frame you

> allotted. Thanks Caroline

>

> --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> " David Karchmer "

> <acuprof wrote:

> >

> > Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

> > -------------------------

> > Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just conducted

> an

> > interesting series of interviews with many of our field's leading

> > minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

> >

> > To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT

> www.chinesemedicinetools.com

> > and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

> >

> > -------------------------

> > A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start piling

> on,

> > about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of the

> > interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty boards.

> >

> > From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews with a

> few

> > people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously expressed

> > their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined to

> be

> > interviewed by CMT.

> >

>

--

Kath Bartlett, LAc, MS, BA UCLA

Oriental Medicine

Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

Asheville Center For

70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

kbartlett

www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

September 8, 2007

my understanding is there is no course. they just ask that you take an

exam. this is part of the problem with this so called specialty for me: it

is a self appointed group of " experts " , there is no course curriculum in

ORM, or supervised clinical training. there is no certifying body which

oversees the self appointed ABORM. this is just a group of LAc's who have

come up with a test, and say if you pay x dollars and pass our exam, we'll

give you a plaque for your wall so you can call yourself a ORM specialist.

this is not how medical specialties work. (yes, i am aware they all have

impressive bios in the ORM field, but that does not justify what they are

doing, regardless of how well intentioned they may be).

kb

On 9/5/07, flyingstarsfengshui <flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> Hello David:

>

> I have a question.

>

> Do you have an outline of the material in the ABORM Course, detailed

> outline so we can see what is being offered for certification?

>

> thanks,

>

> david

>

> --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> " David

> Karchmer " <acuprof wrote:

> >

> > Caroline,

> >

> > My intention was to let folks know that the coverage on the CMT

> site

> > is disproportional and strongly favors ABORM and specialty boards.

> >

> > But this disproportionate coverage does not inherently suggest

> bias,

> > as dissenting opinions were given the opportunity to come forward

> > and were given a forum.

> >

> > Scheduling concerns aside, I want to let people know that

> opponents

> > were invited to voice their opinions, and that CMT did not set out

> > tp present a one-sided perspective.

> >

> > David Karchmer

> >

> > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> " cradicepoli "

> > <CarolineRadice@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Please bear in mind that it is unfair to categorize ABORM

> > opponents

> > > as " declining " requests, and also untrue. We were unable to find

> > > mutual times to conduct such interview requests in the time

> frame

> > you

> > > allotted. Thanks Caroline

> > >

> > > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> " David

> > Karchmer "

> > > <acuprof@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

> > > > -------------------------

> -

> > > > Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just

> > conducted

> > > an

> > > > interesting series of interviews with many of our field's

> > leading

> > > > minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

> > > >

> > > > To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT

> > > www.chinesemedicinetools.com

> > > > and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

> > > >

> > > > -------------------------

> > > > A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start

> piling

> > > on,

> > > > about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of

> > the

> > > > interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty

> > boards.

> > > >

> > > > From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews

> with

> > a

> > > few

> > > > people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously

> > expressed

> > > > their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined

> > to

> > > be

> > > > interviewed by CMT.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

--

Kath Bartlett, LAc, MS, BA UCLA

Oriental Medicine

Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

Asheville Center For

70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

kbartlett

www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

September 8, 2007

greetings,

hats off to the Davids for taking the time and energy to flush out these issues.

I remain

hopeful that thorough discussion will inhibit hasty actions that can undermine

our

profession in the long run.

I agree with Kath on these points. All of them. I am aware of the sentiment in

the western

medical field that we are often " wannabes " . We want to be considered doctors,

we want

equal access to patients, etc., we want our medicine to have weight with both

physicians

and patients. Yet, read the latest issue of Times for a review

of the

NCCAOMs Clean Needle Technique Manual and its inaccuriacies, and western medical

policy makers must wonder why something so cut and dried is not related more

accurately

by our national certifying body.

For all the reason Kath points out, I wager this will be viewed as just another

attempt at

legitimacy that is self created and will confirm their notions of our desire to

be wannabes.

There is a very easy way to determine if such a process will make us more

legitimate in the

western medical world. Run this process by some doctors (not hand picked by

ABORM-

especially those involved in research, education, or members of WM specialty

boards and

including some are resistant to our participation), and see if they feel more

willing to

involve us in research based on how that certificate was created and awarded.

This kind

of research has real utility and we could all see if it will get us where we are

trying to go.

As David T said, our profession is sometimes dominated by a few who make

decisions we

all have to live with. And there is a real basis to the cliche " the road to hell

is paved with

good intentions. " Sometimes it's a bumpy road, sometimes it's a smooth road.

Intention

without the ability to understand the unintended consequences.....

Laura Cooley

Chinese Medicine , " "

wrote:

>

> my understanding is there is no course. they just ask that you take an

> exam. this is part of the problem with this so called specialty for me: it

> is a self appointed group of " experts " , there is no course curriculum in

> ORM, or supervised clinical training. there is no certifying body which

> oversees the self appointed ABORM. this is just a group of LAc's who have

> come up with a test, and say if you pay x dollars and pass our exam, we'll

> give you a plaque for your wall so you can call yourself a ORM specialist.

> this is not how medical specialties work. (yes, i am aware they all have

> impressive bios in the ORM field, but that does not justify what they are

> doing, regardless of how well intentioned they may be).

>

> kb

>

> On 9/5/07, flyingstarsfengshui <flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

> >

> > Hello David:

> >

> > I have a question.

> >

> > Do you have an outline of the material in the ABORM Course, detailed

> > outline so we can see what is being offered for certification?

> >

> > thanks,

> >

> > david

> >

> > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%

40>,

> > " David

> > Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Caroline,

> > >

> > > My intention was to let folks know that the coverage on the CMT

> > site

> > > is disproportional and strongly favors ABORM and specialty boards.

> > >

> > > But this disproportionate coverage does not inherently suggest

> > bias,

> > > as dissenting opinions were given the opportunity to come forward

> > > and were given a forum.

> > >

> > > Scheduling concerns aside, I want to let people know that

> > opponents

> > > were invited to voice their opinions, and that CMT did not set out

> > > tp present a one-sided perspective.

> > >

> > > David Karchmer

> > >

> > > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%

40>,

> > " cradicepoli "

> > > <CarolineRadice@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Please bear in mind that it is unfair to categorize ABORM

> > > opponents

> > > > as " declining " requests, and also untrue. We were unable to find

> > > > mutual times to conduct such interview requests in the time

> > frame

> > > you

> > > > allotted. Thanks Caroline

> > > >

> > > > --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%

40>,

> > " David

> > > Karchmer "

> > > > <acuprof@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Tools (www.chinesemedicinetools.com)

> > > > > -------------------------

> > -

> > > > > Spence Pentland of Tools (CMT) has just

> > > conducted

> > > > an

> > > > > interesting series of interviews with many of our field's

> > > leading

> > > > > minds on the subject of ABORM and specialty boards.

> > > > >

> > > > > To hear these interviews - Log on to CMT

> > > > www.chinesemedicinetools.com

> > > > > and go to the AUDIO / PODCASTS tab at the upper right.

> > > > >

> > > > > -------------------------

> > > > > A Caveat: Before the ABORM abolishionists out there start

> > piling

> > > > on,

> > > > > about CMT's bias, let me disclose up front that all but one of

> > > the

> > > > > interviews seems favor ABORM and the formation of specialty

> > > boards.

> > > > >

> > > > > From what I understand, the webcast crew sought interviews

> > with

> > > a

> > > > few

> > > > > people who opposed ABORM (some of whom have vociferously

> > > expressed

> > > > > their opposition on chat sites such as this) but they declined

> > > to

> > > > be

> > > > > interviewed by CMT.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

> --

> Kath Bartlett, LAc, MS, BA UCLA

> Oriental Medicine

> Experienced, Dedicated, Effective

>

> Asheville Center For

> 70 Woodfin Place, Suite West Wing Two

> Asheville, NC 28801 828.258.2777

> kbartlett

> www.AcupunctureAsheville.com

>

September 8, 2007

I think Kath starts to get at the real roots of the recent ABORM

controversy in her post.

Here's my (far more than) 2 cents...

A certification program provides (ostensibly, at least) a credible

and impartial basis for evaluating a particular individual’s

professional competence. In essence, the credibility of the

certifying organization becomes the basis for evaluating the

certificant's competence. If individual certifications are to have

widely-accepted meaning and value, the credibility of the certifying

organization must be well established.

ABORM has clearly assembled a group of experts well qualified in the

field of OM reproductive medicine. While this is a necessary quality

of any credible certification program, it is very far from sufficient.

Credible certification programs must adequately address a wide array

of areas, including: organizational governance; financial viability;

appropriate staffing; psychometrically valid assessment instruments

based upon a formal practice analyses; policies covering appeals

processes, disciplinary procedures, conflicts of interest,

confidentiality, and other areas; exam security procedures;

recertification requirements; and the list goes on...

Clearly, credible professional certification is not as simple as

getting some experts (no matter how well qualified) together to

administer an exam.

Based only upon the information available on the ABORM website, it is

clear that the certification falls short in a number of the above

standards areas. The absence of a public member on the governing

board, the dearth of published policies and procedures, and the lack

of detail regarding required competencies are but a few of the

readily apparent deficiencies.

If ABORM is serious about establishing credibility, I think it would

be wise for it to slow down, take a breath, and address these

deficiencies before charging forward with administering exams and

issuing certifications. It would also be served well by

significantly improving organizational transparency by publicly

disclosing details of its governance and operations.

While there is not yet a specialty oversight board in this profession

(an analog to the American Board of Medical Specialties in the MD

world), there are well established and generally accepted standards

for certifying agencies as well as generic accrediting organizations

used by many medical and non-medical professional certifying agencies.

The National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) is the most

widely accepted accreditation body. It evaluates certification

programs based on predetermined and standardized criteria. This

would be a great starting point for ABORM.

As a parting note, I must admit that I'm more than a little puzzled

over the sudden spasm of controversy surrounding ABORM. There are

already two other " specialty boards " currently operating in this

profession with at least as many--if not more--deficiencies:

National Board of Internal Medicine for Acupuncturists (NBIMA)

http://www.integratedmedicalsolutions.com/nimba.htm

National Board of Acupuncture Orthopedics (NBAO)

(no website)

Neither of these boards meet generally accepted standards for

certifying agencies. In fact, both boards not only administer a

certification exam but also deliver the education that is a

prerequisite for certification. This alone violates a very basic

conflict of interest standard for certifying agencies. At least

ABORM has not gone down that particular road.

--Bill.

--

Bill Mosca, LAc

San Francisco CA

mosca

On Sep 7, 2007, at 6:41 PM, wrote:

> my understanding is there is no course. they just ask that you

> take an

> exam. this is part of the problem with this so called specialty

> for me: it

> is a self appointed group of " experts " , there is no course

> curriculum in

> ORM, or supervised clinical training. there is no certifying body

> which

> oversees the self appointed ABORM. this is just a group of LAc's

> who have

> come up with a test, and say if you pay x dollars and pass our

> exam, we'll

> give you a plaque for your wall so you can call yourself a ORM

> specialist.

> this is not how medical specialties work. (yes, i am aware they

> all have

> impressive bios in the ORM field, but that does not justify what

> they are

> doing, regardless of how well intentioned they may be).

September 9, 2007

Bill

I could not agree more and clearly we do not have any credible specialty

boards at this point. this is what i have been saying for many years now

-

" Bill Mosca " <mosca

Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:26 PM

Re: Re: ABORM, Specialty Boards, and Tools