Dr. Rubio Speaks

September 11, 2007

Here are some of Dr. Ray Rubio's comments in response to some the

criticisms of ABORM. These commments were originally posted on the

Cinese Medicine Tools website.

Hopefully these comments will speak to some of the concerns being

raised here, and will help to better shape the list of questions

being compiled.

*******************************************************************

As president of the ABORM, I suppose my sentiments on this debate

are obvious, but I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a

couple of misconceptions - many of which were fueled by the original

opposition letter that was circulated.

First, the ABORM was not started out of greed, or hubris, or a

desire to corner a market. Initially, myself and Randine, and some

of the other members saw that some of the RE's we worked closely

with were expressing some concern about the training of

Acupuncturists as it relates to Reproductive Medicine, and they were

suggesting that they might start to use their nurses (RN's) to

simply use the published fertiliity protocols because they at least

knew their nurses training. We were concerned that if that trend

were started, it might only be a matter of time before a serious

effort was started to limit patient's access to any acupuncture

treatment during IVF cycle in general, and to maybe expand that to

TCM in general for patients seeking western infertility treatment.

Because the majority of patients suffering from infertility are

seeking western ART, we hoped that by establishing some minimum

competency standard (i.e. an exam), we might protect the access to

these patients for the entire profession, not only specialists. We

thought it would be better to try to govern ourselves, rather than

wait for outside governance. This conversation took place about 3

years ago, before there were more than a handful of schools offering

doctoral programs, and none were yet accredited. Because Infertility

and Acupuncture were so visible and in demand, we felt the need to

act as quickly as possible. Now we are here, and I personally feel

that the current debate has been an invaluable learning tool for the

ABORM and the profession as a whole.

Keven Ergil and others have raised several very important issues

related to both the ABORM specifically, and the idea of specialty

boards in general. For example, Kevin in his podcast brings up the

American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) as an example of a

regulatory agency that oversees the western specialty board to make

sure that equivalencies exist among specialties, and to make sure

that they each meet certain criteria for legitimacy - years in

residency training among these criteria. Kevin is correct on both

counts that the ABORM does not meet these important pre-requisites:

Oversight Board, and Residency Training. He and others fear that

this will mislead the very patients that the ABORM is trying to

serve. This is definitely a potential problem. I would respond by

reminding those involved with this debate that the ABMS was formed

after there were already 4 western medical specialties in existence,

and at a time when western medicine was in it's infancy at the turn

of the 19th/20th Centuries. The ABMS was formed to try to establish

some sort of order, and equivalency (I think I'm mispelling that

word...) for these emerging specialty boards - very much like where

TCM is in the USA right now. Incidentally, there was very little

residency training available to these earlly specialists at that

time either. I guess my point is that although I think it is helpful

to the ABORM, and other specialty boards to try to emulate this

process, we have a lot of catching up to do, and the process should

start somewhere. Also, these original specialty board were " self-

appointed " , much as the ABORM members took it upon themselves to try

to advance this specialty.

Right now, representatives from the ABORM, the AAAOM, the NCCAOM,

and the CCAOM have formed a task force to discuss the ABORM

specifically, and the idea of specialty boards generally. The

purpose of this task force is to solicit input from the profession,

and to develop some consensus on how Board Certfication in

Specialties should take place in our profession. This task force

will lead to the devlopment of an Board Specialty overisght

committee or board. So, this will play out much like the ABMS did

originally.

The issue of training leading to specialization is a more difficult,

but utlimately the most important bridge that must be crossed. There

are several questions to be answered: many of which were raised by

the thoughtful practitioners on this thread and other online

threads: Should the doctoral programs with specialties in women's

health be the required pre-requisite for sitting for the ABORM exam?

What about those who can't afford to take the time to fly in for

those types of programs? What if those programs teach a specialty

that their patient demographic does not support, i.e. not enough

fertility patients? Could an alternative solution be a series of CEU

courses - from beginning level to advanced level - that can be taken

both in person and in distance learning, that would then qualify one

to sit for the exam. This could then be followed with a reqirement

for residency training in the offices of recognized subject matter

experts both at home and in China. In time, a growing cadre of

specialists would then be able to make the leap to actually have

more residency training available to those who wish to specialize in

OM Reproductive Medicine, or another specialty. Our hope (speaking

for the ABORM) is that residency training, fellowships, journals,

research, symposia, and other opportunities related to the field of

OM Reproductive Medicine will emerge as this process unfolds under

the guidance of the profession and the oversight committee.

Another issue that Kevin and others have correctly mentioned is the

idea of the validity of the ABORM exam itself. Has it taken into

account psychometric evaluation to verify that this exam is a

legally defensible testing instrument that actually measures what it

claims to evaluate? Again, this is an area that the ABORM is

currently actively pursuing with the help of the NCCAOM. Remember

that the NCCAOM originally started offering exams 25 years ago

before their exams were psychometrically validated. They (the AAOM)

saw what they felt was a need, and met it: The NCCAOM Certification

Exam. There was also great resistance at the time to the the idea of

the NCCAOM exam. Imagine if you will, a practitioner who was

practicing with great skill and compassion - but without a license -

maybe in Georgia or somewhere else. Now, let's say that you have

this self-appointed group of individuals (the AAOM and the newly

formed NCCAOM) come in and tell you that they are going to be

establishing an exam that you may have to one day pass to practice

in that state. You have been practicing for 20 plus years, no thanks

to the NCCAOM, and now their well-intentioned idea may threaten your

practice. This was how that process started, and the NCCAOM had to

answer a number of questions and deal with a great deal of rightful

resistence at the beginning, much like the ABORM is now. The NCCAOM

began the process of incorporating psychometric evaluation into

their testing, and formalized surveys of the profession to evaluate

whether or not their exams mirrored what was being taught at large.

The NCCAOM sought and acquired certification from the National

Commission for Certifying Agencies, which is the gold standard for

any organization seeking legitimacy in being a certifying body. This

process was incremental however, and took place over years, as the

exams were being offered. The ABORM will be working with the AAAOM

task force to meet these same criteria. As one practitioner so

succinctly put it, " the legitimacy of a certification is ultimately

a reflection of the legitimacy of the organization or board offering

that certification " . I think that this statement goes to the heart

of the current debate about the ABORM specifically, and the idea of

specialty boards in general. How is legitimacy determined. Caroline

Radice (one of the authors of the opposition letter) rightly pointed

out that an exam without training is meaningless. True. However, as

a teacher at a TCM school for the last decade, I can point to

countless students who completed 4 years of training in class and

clinic, and yet who couldn't demonstrate even entry level competency

when they failed their boards over and over. The ABORM felt that

there were numerous courses - from beginning level to advanced being

offered in the field of infertility, and we hoped that a

certification exam for those who have taken the majority of these

courses, or for those who are already proficient in OM Reproductive

Medicine might offer a vehicle for patients and practitioners to

demonstrate a minimum competency in this specialty. This was the

starting point, and the current debate has illustrated that there is

much room for growth in this endeavor.

Having said all of the above, I want to close by reminding those

interested in this debate that the ABORM was purposely established

as a non-profit, 501 © 6 corporation, in order to be as

transparent fiscally and governmentally as possible. Unlike other

specialty boards that are individually operated for profit, the

ABORM will utilize it's funding from examination fees to promote

more awareness of the benefits of OM for infertile patients -whether

or not that patients is treated by an ABORM member or not. We also

hope to open doors for working opportunities in hospitals, and RE

clinics across the country by interfacing with our western

counterparts, and we hope to develop a series of fellowships in

China, Korea and Japan for practitioners who wish to spend time

studying with OM reproductive specialists there. We also hope to

develop a journal and symposia devoted to this field of specialty,

and to help fund and foster research opportunities for those

practitioners who maybe have an idea for a research topic related to

this area of specialty, but who maybe don't have the patient

population or expertise to conduct it on their own. We will strive

to be the resource for practioners who are trying to get their foot

in the door at RE's clinics in their town or provence by developing

powerpoint presentations and materials that can be used to

demonstrate the power of TCM for the infertile patient population.

And, at the risk of sounding like an infomercial - that's not all...

Lastly, the ABORM specifically avoided offering the type of board

certfication model where there were a series of modules or trainings

leading to certification because it was felt to be an inferent

conflict of interest: i.e. if someone is offering training courses

leading to an examination for certification, then there is an

inferent risk that the individuals sitting for that exam will be

passed through. If too many people fail the exam associated with the

program, the program or training course itself willl not survive.

Thanks to everyone - both pro and con - for not just standing by,

but actively taking part in the future of our medicine. I for one

feel that our medicine is in good hands based upon the insightful

dialogue that has taken place so far.

Warmest Regards,

Ray Rubio, D.A.O.M.

President ABORM

September 11, 2007

Hi all; Ray Rubio seems to be altruistic in his endeavour, however, he does not

comment (did I miss it?) on what the eventual effect of forming the ABORM will

be. Is the formation of a specialty board going to protect us from the nurses

at first, and then divide and compartmentalise our profession?

Hugo

David Karchmer <acuprof

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, 11 September, 2007 11:17:47 AM

Dr. Rubio Speaks

Here are some of Dr. Ray Rubio's comments in response to some the

criticisms of ABORM. These commments were originally posted on the

Cinese Medicine Tools website.

Hopefully these comments will speak to some of the concerns being

raised here, and will help to better shape the list of questions

being compiled.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *

As president of the ABORM, I suppose my sentiments on this debate

are obvious, but I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a

couple of misconceptions - many of which were fueled by the original

opposition letter that was circulated.

_________

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it

now.

http://uk.answers./

September 11, 2007

I really need to caution about the starting of more certification bodies. In

BC, Canada a body was created for the licensing of TCM practitioners. Over

the years the organization has been steered into a very different direction

from that which it was founded in. A number of the original members who were

involved with founding the organization have now walked away from it. While

many of these groups are started with the best intentions, they can get

taken over by people with a specific agenda and grow into a very ugly beast.

- Mark

On 9/11/07, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote:

>

> Hi all; Ray Rubio seems to be altruistic in his endeavour, however, he

> does not comment (did I miss it?) on what the eventual effect of forming the

> ABORM will be. Is the formation of a specialty board going to protect us

> from the nurses at first, and then divide and compartmentalise our

> profession?

>

> Hugo

>

> David Karchmer <acuprof <acuprof%40hotmail.com>>

> To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

> Tuesday, 11 September, 2007 11:17:47 AM

> Dr. Rubio Speaks

>

> Here are some of Dr. Ray Rubio's comments in response to some the

>

> criticisms of ABORM. These commments were originally posted on the

>

> Cinese Medicine Tools website.

>

> Hopefully these comments will speak to some of the concerns being

>

> raised here, and will help to better shape the list of questions

>

> being compiled.

>

> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *

>

> As president of the ABORM, I suppose my sentiments on this debate

>

> are obvious, but I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a

>

> couple of misconceptions - many of which were fueled by the original

>

> opposition letter that was circulated.

>

> ________

> Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try

> it

> now.

> http://uk.answers./

>

September 11, 2007

David T,

You might bring these concerns up with Martin Herbkersman.

He is the vice-president of the Board of Directors of the American

Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (AAAOM) and is a

founding member of the American Board of Oriental Reproductive

Medicine. He serves as Chairman of the South Carolina Acupuncture

Advisory Committee to the Board of Medical Examiners. He is also a

member of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

Regards,

David K.

*************************************************************

Full Bio taken from the ABORM website

Martin Herbkersman, L.Ac., D.Ac., Dipl.Ac., C.H., O.M.

Martin_Herbkersman is an National Board Certified (NCCAOM)

Acupuncturist and Herbalist with a practice in Columbia, South

Carolina. Dr. Herbkersman's clinical training includes the local

community clinic in Santa Monica, California and inpatient work at

Daniel Freeman Hospital in Marina Del Ray, California where he spent

six months in an integrated medical setting. Currently he is working

with a Reproductive endocrinologist using Oriental Reproductive

Medicine to enhance the efficacy of conventional fertility

treatments. He is the vice-president of the Board of Directors of

the American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine

(AAAOM) and is a founding member of the American Board of Oriental

Reproductive Medicine. He serves as Chairman of the South Carolina

Acupuncture Advisory Committee to the Board of Medical Examiners. He

is also a member of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine

(ASRM). He has children of his own and finds joy in enhancing the

possibility of children for others

--- In

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

<flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> This is a long post with a lot of information and is very

revealing.

> I will have some comments on it in the next few days or week. But

I

> find the following statement very interesting and it concerns me

how

> these issues are being framed.

>

> " The purpose of this task force (AAAOM, and others) is to solicit

> input from the profession, and to develop some consensus on how

> Board Certfication in Specialties should take place in our

> profession. This task force will lead to the devlopment of an

Board

> Specialty overisght committee or board. So, this will play out

much

> like the ABMS did originally. "

>

> Who has decided this? Does the Task Force have the choice to

decide

> whether it supports Certification at all? Our entire profession

may

> decide it does not support certicates, but supports education and

> courses. When I talk about marketing this is what I refer to, in

> their nice way they are dictating what our membership based

> organization is seeking to determine, the assumption is we support

> Certification, it is now a matter of how to do it.

>

> regards,

>

> david

>

> >

>

September 11, 2007

David T,

Since you raised the question of who decided the AAAOM's role in the

oversight of specialty boards, I thought people might like to know

that Mr. Herbkersman is both the vice-president of the Board ofs of the American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental

Medicine (AAAOM) and is also a founding member of the American Board

of Oriental Reproductive Medicine (ABORM).

It seems that there is much speculation as to motive, and conjecture

about who is controlling the future direction of our medicine.

I thought that folks might like to know that these two organizations

are in communication and have at least on board member in common.

Sorry if you took offense. I certainly did not mean to suggest that

you aren't knowledgeable about who is involved in the process. Next

time I suppose I will just address such things to the community at

large. Will that be OK with you?

David K.

---

--- In

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

<flyingstarsfengshui wrote:

>

> David:

>

> Thanks for you guidance, but I know quite a few of the people

> affilated with ABORM and thier assocaites personally. Martin was a

> student of mine and is a friend. So in the future please refrain

> from stearing me to people, I am well informed on who's who.

>

> THanks,

>

> Chinese Medicine , " David

> Karchmer " <acuprof@> wrote:

> >

> > David T,

> >

> > You might bring these concerns up with Martin Herbkersman.

> >

> > He is the vice-president of the Board of Directors of the

American

> > Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (AAAOM) and is

a

> > founding member of the American Board of Oriental Reproductive

> > Medicine. He serves as Chairman of the South Carolina

Acupuncture

> > Advisory Committee to the Board of Medical Examiners. He is also

a

> > member of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM).

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > David K.

> > *************************************************************

> > Full Bio taken from the ABORM website

> >

> > Martin Herbkersman, L.Ac., D.Ac., Dipl.Ac., C.H., O.M.

> > Martin_Herbkersman is an National Board Certified (NCCAOM)

> > Acupuncturist and Herbalist with a practice in Columbia, South

> > Carolina. Dr. Herbkersman's clinical training includes the local

> > community clinic in Santa Monica, California and inpatient work

at

> > Daniel Freeman Hospital in Marina Del Ray, California where he

> spent

> > six months in an integrated medical setting. Currently he is

> working

> > with a Reproductive endocrinologist using Oriental Reproductive

> > Medicine to enhance the efficacy of conventional fertility

> > treatments. He is the vice-president of the Board of Directors

of

> > the American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine

> > (AAAOM) and is a founding member of the American Board of

Oriental

> > Reproductive Medicine. He serves as Chairman of the South

Carolina

> > Acupuncture Advisory Committee to the Board of Medical

Examiners.

> He

> > is also a member of the American Society for Reproductive

Medicine

> > (ASRM). He has children of his own and finds joy in enhancing

the

> > possibility of children for others

> > --- In

> >

>

Chinese Medicine , " flyingstarsfengshui "

> > <flyingstarsfengshui@> wrote:

> > >

> > > This is a long post with a lot of information and is very

> > revealing.

> > > I will have some comments on it in the next few days or week.

> But

> > I

> > > find the following statement very interesting and it concerns

me

> > how

> > > these issues are being framed.

> > >

> > > " The purpose of this task force (AAAOM, and others) is to

> solicit

> > > input from the profession, and to develop some consensus on

how

> > > Board Certfication in Specialties should take place in our

> > > profession. This task force will lead to the devlopment of an

> > Board

> > > Specialty overisght committee or board. So, this will play out

> > much

> > > like the ABMS did originally. "

> > >

> > > Who has decided this? Does the Task Force have the choice to

> > decide

> > > whether it supports Certification at all? Our entire

profession

> > may

> > > decide it does not support certicates, but supports education

> and

> > > courses. When I talk about marketing this is what I refer to,

in

> > > their nice way they are dictating what our membership based

> > > organization is seeking to determine, the assumption is we

> support

> > > Certification, it is now a matter of how to do it.

> > >

> > > regards,

> > >

> > > david

> > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

September 12, 2007

david:

this is indeed insightful, pertinent commentary added to this discussion.

thank you for getting this together for us.

kb

On 9/11/07, David Karchmer <acuprof wrote:

> Here are some of Dr. Ray Rubio's comments in response to some the

> criticisms of ABORM. These commments were originally posted on the

> Cinese Medicine Tools website.

>

> Hopefully these comments will speak to some of the concerns being

> raised here, and will help to better shape the list of questions

> being compiled.

>

> *******************************************************************

> As president of the ABORM, I suppose my sentiments on this debate

> are obvious, but I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a

> couple of misconceptions - many of which were fueled by the original

> opposition letter that was circulated.

>

> First, the ABORM was not started out of greed, or hubris, or a

> desire to corner a market. Initially, myself and Randine, and some

> of the other members saw that some of the RE's we worked closely

> with were expressing some concern about the training of

> Acupuncturists as it relates to Reproductive Medicine, and they were

> suggesting that they might start to use their nurses (RN's) to

> simply use the published fertiliity protocols because they at least

> knew their nurses training. We were concerned that if that trend

> were started, it might only be a matter of time before a serious

> effort was started to limit patient's access to any acupuncture

> treatment during IVF cycle in general, and to maybe expand that to

> TCM in general for patients seeking western infertility treatment.

> Because the majority of patients suffering from infertility are

> seeking western ART, we hoped that by establishing some minimum

> competency standard (i.e. an exam), we might protect the access to

> these patients for the entire profession, not only specialists. We

> thought it would be better to try to govern ourselves, rather than

> wait for outside governance. This conversation took place about 3

> years ago, before there were more than a handful of schools offering

> doctoral programs, and none were yet accredited. Because Infertility

> and Acupuncture were so visible and in demand, we felt the need to

> act as quickly as possible. Now we are here, and I personally feel

> that the current debate has been an invaluable learning tool for the

> ABORM and the profession as a whole.

>

> Keven Ergil and others have raised several very important issues

> related to both the ABORM specifically, and the idea of specialty

> boards in general. For example, Kevin in his podcast brings up the

> American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) as an example of a

> regulatory agency that oversees the western specialty board to make

> sure that equivalencies exist among specialties, and to make sure

> that they each meet certain criteria for legitimacy - years in

> residency training among these criteria. Kevin is correct on both

> counts that the ABORM does not meet these important pre-requisites:

> Oversight Board, and Residency Training. He and others fear that

> this will mislead the very patients that the ABORM is trying to

> serve. This is definitely a potential problem. I would respond by

> reminding those involved with this debate that the ABMS was formed

> after there were already 4 western medical specialties in existence,

> and at a time when western medicine was in it's infancy at the turn

> of the 19th/20th Centuries. The ABMS was formed to try to establish

> some sort of order, and equivalency (I think I'm mispelling that

> word...) for these emerging specialty boards - very much like where

> TCM is in the USA right now. Incidentally, there was very little

> residency training available to these earlly specialists at that

> time either. I guess my point is that although I think it is helpful

> to the ABORM, and other specialty boards to try to emulate this

> process, we have a lot of catching up to do, and the process should

> start somewhere. Also, these original specialty board were " self-

> appointed " , much as the ABORM members took it upon themselves to try

> to advance this specialty.

>

> Right now, representatives from the ABORM, the AAAOM, the NCCAOM,

> and the CCAOM have formed a task force to discuss the ABORM

> specifically, and the idea of specialty boards generally. The

> purpose of this task force is to solicit input from the profession,

> and to develop some consensus on how Board Certfication in

> Specialties should take place in our profession. This task force

> will lead to the devlopment of an Board Specialty overisght

> committee or board. So, this will play out much like the ABMS did

> originally.

>

> The issue of training leading to specialization is a more difficult,

> but utlimately the most important bridge that must be crossed. There

> are several questions to be answered: many of which were raised by

> the thoughtful practitioners on this thread and other online

> threads: Should the doctoral programs with specialties in women's

> health be the required pre-requisite for sitting for the ABORM exam?

> What about those who can't afford to take the time to fly in for

> those types of programs? What if those programs teach a specialty

> that their patient demographic does not support, i.e. not enough

> fertility patients? Could an alternative solution be a series of CEU

> courses - from beginning level to advanced level - that can be taken

> both in person and in distance learning, that would then qualify one

> to sit for the exam. This could then be followed with a reqirement

> for residency training in the offices of recognized subject matter

> experts both at home and in China. In time, a growing cadre of

> specialists would then be able to make the leap to actually have

> more residency training available to those who wish to specialize in

> OM Reproductive Medicine, or another specialty. Our hope (speaking

> for the ABORM) is that residency training, fellowships, journals,

> research, symposia, and other opportunities related to the field of

> OM Reproductive Medicine will emerge as this process unfolds under

> the guidance of the profession and the oversight committee.

>

> Another issue that Kevin and others have correctly mentioned is the

> idea of the validity of the ABORM exam itself. Has it taken into

> account psychometric evaluation to verify that this exam is a

> legally defensible testing instrument that actually measures what it

> claims to evaluate? Again, this is an area that the ABORM is

> currently actively pursuing with the help of the NCCAOM. Remember

> that the NCCAOM originally started offering exams 25 years ago

> before their exams were psychometrically validated. They (the AAOM)

> saw what they felt was a need, and met it: The NCCAOM Certification

> Exam. There was also great resistance at the time to the the idea of

> the NCCAOM exam. Imagine if you will, a practitioner who was

> practicing with great skill and compassion - but without a license -

> maybe in Georgia or somewhere else. Now, let's say that you have

> this self-appointed group of individuals (the AAOM and the newly

> formed NCCAOM) come in and tell you that they are going to be

> establishing an exam that you may have to one day pass to practice

> in that state. You have been practicing for 20 plus years, no thanks

> to the NCCAOM, and now their well-intentioned idea may threaten your

> practice. This was how that process started, and the NCCAOM had to

> answer a number of questions and deal with a great deal of rightful

> resistence at the beginning, much like the ABORM is now. The NCCAOM

> began the process of incorporating psychometric evaluation into

> their testing, and formalized surveys of the profession to evaluate

> whether or not their exams mirrored what was being taught at large.

> The NCCAOM sought and acquired certification from the National

> Commission for Certifying Agencies, which is the gold standard for

> any organization seeking legitimacy in being a certifying body. This

> process was incremental however, and took place over years, as the

> exams were being offered. The ABORM will be working with the AAAOM

> task force to meet these same criteria. As one practitioner so

> succinctly put it, " the legitimacy of a certification is ultimately

> a reflection of the legitimacy of the organization or board offering

> that certification " . I think that this statement goes to the heart

> of the current debate about the ABORM specifically, and the idea of

> specialty boards in general. How is legitimacy determined. Caroline

> Radice (one of the authors of the opposition letter) rightly pointed

> out that an exam without training is meaningless. True. However, as

> a teacher at a TCM school for the last decade, I can point to

> countless students who completed 4 years of training in class and

> clinic, and yet who couldn't demonstrate even entry level competency

> when they failed their boards over and over. The ABORM felt that

> there were numerous courses - from beginning level to advanced being

> offered in the field of infertility, and we hoped that a

> certification exam for those who have taken the majority of these

> courses, or for those who are already proficient in OM Reproductive

> Medicine might offer a vehicle for patients and practitioners to

> demonstrate a minimum competency in this specialty. This was the

> starting point, and the current debate has illustrated that there is

> much room for growth in this endeavor.

>

> Having said all of the above, I want to close by reminding those

> interested in this debate that the ABORM was purposely established

> as a non-profit, 501 © 6 corporation, in order to be as

> transparent fiscally and governmentally as possible. Unlike other

> specialty boards that are individually operated for profit, the

> ABORM will utilize it's funding from examination fees to promote

> more awareness of the benefits of OM for infertile patients -whether

> or not that patients is treated by an ABORM member or not. We also

> hope to open doors for working opportunities in hospitals, and RE

> clinics across the country by interfacing with our western

> counterparts, and we hope to develop a series of fellowships in

> China, Korea and Japan for practitioners who wish to spend time

> studying with OM reproductive specialists there. We also hope to

> develop a journal and symposia devoted to this field of specialty,

> and to help fund and foster research opportunities for those

> practitioners who maybe have an idea for a research topic related to

> this area of specialty, but who maybe don't have the patient

> population or expertise to conduct it on their own. We will strive

> to be the resource for practioners who are trying to get their foot

> in the door at RE's clinics in their town or provence by developing

> powerpoint presentations and materials that can be used to

> demonstrate the power of TCM for the infertile patient population.

> And, at the risk of sounding like an infomercial - that's not all...

>

> Lastly, the ABORM specifically avoided offering the type of board

> certfication model where there were a series of modules or trainings

> leading to certification because it was felt to be an inferent

> conflict of interest: i.e. if someone is offering training courses

> leading to an examination for certification, then there is an

> inferent risk that the individuals sitting for that exam will be

> passed through. If too many people fail the exam associated with the

> program, the program or training course itself willl not survive.

>

> Thanks to everyone - both pro and con - for not just standing by,

> but actively taking part in the future of our medicine. I for one

> feel that our medicine is in good hands based upon the insightful

> dialogue that has taken place so far.

>

> Warmest Regards,

>

> Ray Rubio, D.A.O.M.

> President ABORM

>

--

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 14, 2007

With his permission, I am sharing Lee Hullender's thoughts from a

different chat room.

Visit him at: www.abundantspring.com

***************************************************************

I wanted to comment on what Ray has said above about the initiation

of REs to promote outside governance of our practice within the

field of Reproductive Medicine. As a little background, I work at a

fertility clinic and in my own practice. I am a self-professed

fertility specialist and have spent five years working on that

specialty through a two-year mentorship, continuing ed, and most

importantly, seeing a lot of couples. Currently I am completing the

DAOM program at OCOM with a specialty in women's health.

It is my opinion that TCM's systemic approach is essential in the

effective and successful treatment of fertility. I personally do not

assert that one who doesn't 'specialize' has not been capable of

supporting a client's fertility. However, I can attest (as I'm sure

others here can as well) specialization is presently a core

establishment within the TCM hospital system in China. I spent two

internships in a gynecology department. From my observation and

personal discussions, Chinese doctors understand the value of their

skills set, experience and its application to their patient

demographic through their specialty. Further, I can also attest

savvy patients can tell if a practitioner is knowledgable about ART,

fertility, and all of the varying diagnoses that it contains. If an

acupuncturist is interested in working with REs and serving this

patient population, a population that is often motivated and very

often knowledgable about the field of reproductive medicine, it

would serve him or her well to deeply study it in both western and

eastern approaches. The REs will steer clear of you if they don't

trust you and so will the couples. Bridging the two fields of

medicine can allow for a deeper, scholarly discussion in our

terminology and representative of TCM in practice. It can also

provide an avenue for further exploration of its application within

the scientifc model, but within the parameters of TCM treatment, not

an extrapolated, standardized version. Instead, the research becomes

ecologically valid. There is no reason both worlds cannot coexist

and mutually benefit and support one another. We become advocates,

architects and pilots of our own destiny.

For this reason, I support the intention and development of the

ABORM for the primary reason of preserving the practice of OM in its

authentic form. Secondarily, I support it for its potential to

further the body of evidence and scholarly discussion of ORM. From a

macrocosmic viewpoint, it serves the community to advance while

holding strongly to our roots through transformation. This

transformative process, while at times a bit bumpy, will reveal the

elegant flexibility that our medicine represents. Further, it allows

us to retain the spirit of the medicine without sacrificing it for

acceptance.

Warmly,

Lee Hullender, LAc

Chinese Medicine , " David

Karchmer " <acuprof wrote:

>

> Here are some of Dr. Ray Rubio's comments in response to some the

> criticisms of ABORM. These commments were originally posted on the

> Cinese Medicine Tools website.

>

> Hopefully these comments will speak to some of the concerns being

> raised here, and will help to better shape the list of questions

> being compiled.

>

> *******************************************************************

> As president of the ABORM, I suppose my sentiments on this debate

> are obvious, but I would like to take this opportunity to clear up

a

> couple of misconceptions - many of which were fueled by the

original

> opposition letter that was circulated.

>

> First, the ABORM was not started out of greed, or hubris, or a

> desire to corner a market. Initially, myself and Randine, and some

> of the other members saw that some of the RE's we worked closely

> with were expressing some concern about the training of

> Acupuncturists as it relates to Reproductive Medicine, and they

were

> suggesting that they might start to use their nurses (RN's) to

> simply use the published fertiliity protocols because they at

least