Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles of acupuncture

[Guest guest]

Dear Group:

 

I am very disheartened and dismayed at all of the derogatory remarks and

misinformation concerning Tan/Chen/Tung-style acupuncture being bandied

about on this group. Many of these attacks have not just singled out certain

styles of acupuncture, but have rather focused on the morals and ethics of

the many of us who have incorporated these styles into our various

practices.

 

First I would like to address some of the misinformation and the stunning

lack of understanding of the basic principles of acupuncture and the

Classics displayed by some of the detractors:

 

Angela Pfaffenberger stated that, " A striking feature of Tan's system is

that it takes so little time, the clients do not need to disrobe, and you

don't really need a diagnosis, you can do the whole thing is a bout 10

minutes...Plus the underlying disorder is never remedied, consequently the

client has to return and Tan also recommends frequent treatments... "

 

First, of course there is a necessary diagnosis - to suggest otherwise is

ridiculous. And the comment that " the underlying disorder is never

remedied " is also nonsense. Meridian-style acupuncture/Balance Method

focuses on diagnosing the " sick " meridian(s) which indicates the location of

physical pain as well as an underlying internal problem. This type of

treatment addresses root and branch and I am astounded that any experienced

practitioner could think for a second that bringing balance to a patient's

meridian system would only suffice to alleviate physical pain. And I don't

see any downside to being able to spend less time with each patient and see

more per hour as long as you are giving effective treatments. Don't we all

hope that clients return? I do, and I have personally had more patients

return to address other issues following a rather quick resolution of their

initial complaint. My results have been faster using this type of treatment

rather than the herbalized TCM style I was taught in school. And frequent

treatments - which happen to be the norm in China - can make a huge

difference in results with stubborn, chronic conditions.

 

Someone made the comment:

" Many practitioners are claiming how once they switched to Dr Tan's style,

they saw much better results. "

 

To which Lonny Jarrett replied:

" Lonny: This would depend on one's value system regarding what

constitutes " a better result " . "

 

This seems a terribly arrogant and negative assessment of Tan practitioners'

value systems. But we'll probably never know for sure because Lonny deigned

not to lower himself and " expound a bit " on what he was enigmatically

putting forth. attempted to translate:

 

" Lonny has a good point here...What Lonny is speaking about here is very

profound. He is asking

whether the relief of symptomatic pain is the goal of the patient and

practitioner, or something deeper, which in my approach to Chinese

medicine would be alleviation of disharmonious patterns. Lonny may be

looking at more spiritual issues as well, including lifestyle,

emotions, outlook . . . "

 

I am not sure how he managed to divine all of that from Lonny's cryptic

one-liner. Of course, once again, meridian-style treatments do much more

than simply alleviate symptomatic pain. As far as Lonny possibly looking at

more spiritual issues, that's nice - especially if that is the patient's

goal - but why is it necessary to comment on other practitioners' value

systems at all? What's profound about that?

 

David Vitello responded to Lonny as well:

 

" Lonny,

 

Good point. I think there is a large influence Orange in Dr Tan

practitioners. There are quite few big name Dr Tan'rs practitioners

in WA -where I practice- and resonating with Angelina, they seem to

me to be interested in fast paced busy practices with little care for

deeper healing. The Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent

with these guys. There is this whole Scientology-Singer-Dr Tan-Jimmy

Chang- Lotus seminar-collaboration monster that is really a bit scary

to me...To not understand the effectiveness of local needling for some

disorders is

baffling. "

 

Well, to begin with, linking Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners in general with

Scientology, David Singer and colors (?) is preposterous. I had to google

Singer to even find out what the heck is being referenced. Here again we

also have the inaccurate slam on " little care for deeper healing " . And " The

Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent with these guys " also sounds

like a slam, but it's pointless to refute gibberish so I'm not even going to

attempt that. And yes, local needling can be effective but, in my

experience, meridian-style treatments provide quicker and deeper results so

I am really confused how you could interpret a stronger, quicker response as

being somehow sub-par. By the way, what color value is assigned to cheap

shots?

 

Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply disturbed to

see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived modality

and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am also

very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm afraid

that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we are such

a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

promulgating this sort of division.

 

With all due respect,

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Kim,

I was hardly 'dissing' Tan/Tung acupuncture. If you look in

another post, you will see that I defend Dr. Tan and his approach. My

point was not to criticize this style or method, but simply point out

that practitioners need to 'own' these methods by studying the root

theory/principles behind them, to go beyond the 'end-user' status. As

far as Lonny goes, I know him well, and I think his point that the

therapy is not the issue, but what the practitioner and patient aim

for in the healing relationship/context. Is it just symptom relief,

systematic homeostasis, or something even deeper?

 

 

On Feb 2, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Kim Blankenship wrote:

 

> Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

> disturbed to

> see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

> modality

> and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

> also

> very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

> afraid

> that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

> are such

> a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> promulgating this sort of division.

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Agreed that not all people who practice Dr. Tan's style are in the orange

meme (spiral dynamics lingo),

but we have to admit that Dr. Tan's style is popular because it is easy to

use and gets good results for short term pain.

Most people want good results and easy protocols. That's a great recipe.

 

In other words, everyone can use Tan's system for acupuncture, even those

who have never studied Chinese medicine. All you have to know is which

channel is affected and a few patterns with the five shu (antique) points

and a few of Master Tung's points.

The practice that Worsley school practitioners apply does require much more

investigation in the person as a whole (physical, emotional, mental)

levels. Other styles such as Kiiko style and Meridian therapy also go

deeper into the patient's constitution and context.

 

I think that good results can be had from Tan's style, but we may not

understand the mechanism of the outcome,

since there is a " cookie-cutter " aspect to it. In other words, can you

explain by using Dr. Tan's system why or why not the patient got better?

 

A big part of being a healer is the process and not just the product

(outcome)...

 

K (somewhere between green and turquoise)...

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:33 PM, <zrosenbe wrote:

 

> Kim,

> I was hardly 'dissing' Tan/Tung acupuncture. If you look in

> another post, you will see that I defend Dr. Tan and his approach. My

> point was not to criticize this style or method, but simply point out

> that practitioners need to 'own' these methods by studying the root

> theory/principles behind them, to go beyond the 'end-user' status. As

> far as Lonny goes, I know him well, and I think his point that the

> therapy is not the issue, but what the practitioner and patient aim

> for in the healing relationship/context. Is it just symptom relief,

> systematic homeostasis, or something even deeper?

>

>

>

> On Feb 2, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Kim Blankenship wrote:

>

> > Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

> > disturbed to

> > see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

> > modality

> > and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

> > also

> > very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

> > afraid

> > that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

> > are such

> > a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> > promulgating this sort of division.

>

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Kim,

 

While schooled, and perhaps enlightened, many/most on this forum are

still human.

 

Perhaps the explanation you seek is simply " envy " in one form or

another. Envious of the income, or the physical surroundings,

envious of the volume, or the patient-perceived results?

 

Interesting too to read of conspiracy/secret society from one who

uses the secret language of some other secret group (spiral dynamics).

 

Chinese medicine works and it has for thousands of years when applied

correctly (within a wide array of styles). Given enough time, those

with concentration and aptitude can learn to be effective

practitioners.

 

Just being a good practitioner will not make one $ucce$$ful in

busine$$. A hard pill to swallow for some.

 

Mark Z

 

Chinese Medicine , Kim Blankenship

<kuangguiyu wrote:

>

> Dear Group:

>

> I am very disheartened and dismayed at all of the derogatory

remarks and

> misinformation concerning Tan/Chen/Tung-style acupuncture being

bandied

> about on this group. Many of these attacks have not just singled

out certain

> styles of acupuncture, but have rather focused on the morals and

ethics of

> the many of us who have incorporated these styles into our various

> practices.

>

> First I would like to address some of the misinformation and the

stunning

> lack of understanding of the basic principles of acupuncture and the

> Classics displayed by some of the detractors:

>

> Angela Pfaffenberger stated that, " A striking feature of Tan's

system is

> that it takes so little time, the clients do not need to disrobe,

and you

> don't really need a diagnosis, you can do the whole thing is a bout

10

> minutes...Plus the underlying disorder is never remedied,

consequently the

> client has to return and Tan also recommends frequent treatments... "

>

> First, of course there is a necessary diagnosis - to suggest

otherwise is

> ridiculous. And the comment that " the underlying disorder is never

> remedied " is also nonsense. Meridian-style acupuncture/Balance

Method

> focuses on diagnosing the " sick " meridian(s) which indicates the

location of

> physical pain as well as an underlying internal problem. This type

of

> treatment addresses root and branch and I am astounded that any

experienced

> practitioner could think for a second that bringing balance to a

patient's

> meridian system would only suffice to alleviate physical pain. And

I don't

> see any downside to being able to spend less time with each patient

and see

> more per hour as long as you are giving effective treatments.

Don't we all

> hope that clients return? I do, and I have personally had more

patients

> return to address other issues following a rather quick resolution

of their

> initial complaint. My results have been faster using this type of

treatment

> rather than the herbalized TCM style I was taught in school. And

frequent

> treatments - which happen to be the norm in China - can make a huge

> difference in results with stubborn, chronic conditions.

>

> Someone made the comment:

> " Many practitioners are claiming how once they switched to Dr Tan's

style,

> they saw much better results. "

>

> To which Lonny Jarrett replied:

> " Lonny: This would depend on one's value system regarding what

> constitutes " a better result " . "

>

> This seems a terribly arrogant and negative assessment of Tan

practitioners'

> value systems. But we'll probably never know for sure because

Lonny deigned

> not to lower himself and " expound a bit " on what he was

enigmatically

> putting forth. attempted to translate:

>

> " Lonny has a good point here...What Lonny is speaking about here is

very

> profound. He is asking

> whether the relief of symptomatic pain is the goal of the patient

and

> practitioner, or something deeper, which in my approach to Chinese

> medicine would be alleviation of disharmonious patterns. Lonny may

be

> looking at more spiritual issues as well, including lifestyle,

> emotions, outlook . . . "

>

> I am not sure how he managed to divine all of that from Lonny's

cryptic

> one-liner. Of course, once again, meridian-style treatments do

much more

> than simply alleviate symptomatic pain. As far as Lonny possibly

looking at

> more spiritual issues, that's nice - especially if that is the

patient's

> goal - but why is it necessary to comment on other practitioners'

value

> systems at all? What's profound about that?

>

> David Vitello responded to Lonny as well:

>

> " Lonny,

>

> Good point. I think there is a large influence Orange in Dr Tan

> practitioners. There are quite few big name Dr Tan'rs practitioners

> in WA -where I practice- and resonating with Angelina, they seem to

> me to be interested in fast paced busy practices with little care

for

> deeper healing. The Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent

> with these guys. There is this whole Scientology-Singer-Dr Tan-Jimmy

> Chang- Lotus seminar-collaboration monster that is really a bit

scary

> to me...To not understand the effectiveness of local needling for

some

> disorders is

> baffling. "

>

> Well, to begin with, linking Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners in general

with

> Scientology, David Singer and colors (?) is preposterous. I had to

google

> Singer to even find out what the heck is being referenced. Here

again we

> also have the inaccurate slam on " little care for deeper healing " .

And " The

> Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent with these guys "

also sounds

> like a slam, but it's pointless to refute gibberish so I'm not even

going to

> attempt that. And yes, local needling can be effective but, in my

> experience, meridian-style treatments provide quicker and deeper

results so

> I am really confused how you could interpret a stronger, quicker

response as

> being somehow sub-par. By the way, what color value is assigned to

cheap

> shots?

>

> Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

disturbed to

> see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

modality

> and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

also

> very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

afraid

> that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

are such

> a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> promulgating this sort of division.

>

> With all due respect,

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hear, hear

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Kim Blankenship <kuangguiyu

Chinese Medicine

Monday, February 2, 2009 8:26:36 PM

Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles of

acupuncture

 

 

Dear Group:

 

I am very disheartened and dismayed at all of the derogatory remarks and

misinformation concerning Tan/Chen/Tung- style acupuncture being bandied

about on this group. Many of these attacks have not just singled out certain

styles of acupuncture, but have rather focused on the morals and ethics of

the many of us who have incorporated these styles into our various

practices.

 

First I would like to address some of the misinformation and the stunning

lack of understanding of the basic principles of acupuncture and the

Classics displayed by some of the detractors:

 

Angela Pfaffenberger stated that, " A striking feature of Tan's system is

that it takes so little time, the clients do not need to disrobe, and you

don't really need a diagnosis, you can do the whole thing is a bout 10

minutes...Plus the underlying disorder is never remedied, consequently the

client has to return and Tan also recommends frequent treatments.. . "

 

First, of course there is a necessary diagnosis - to suggest otherwise is

ridiculous. And the comment that " the underlying disorder is never

remedied " is also nonsense. Meridian-style acupuncture/ Balance Method

focuses on diagnosing the " sick " meridian(s) which indicates the location of

physical pain as well as an underlying internal problem. This type of

treatment addresses root and branch and I am astounded that any experienced

practitioner could think for a second that bringing balance to a patient's

meridian system would only suffice to alleviate physical pain. And I don't

see any downside to being able to spend less time with each patient and see

more per hour as long as you are giving effective treatments. Don't we all

hope that clients return? I do, and I have personally had more patients

return to address other issues following a rather quick resolution of their

initial complaint. My results have been faster using this type of treatment

rather than the herbalized TCM style I was taught in school. And frequent

treatments - which happen to be the norm in China - can make a huge

difference in results with stubborn, chronic conditions.

 

Someone made the comment:

" Many practitioners are claiming how once they switched to Dr Tan's style,

they saw much better results. "

 

To which Lonny Jarrett replied:

" Lonny: This would depend on one's value system regarding what

constitutes " a better result " . "

 

This seems a terribly arrogant and negative assessment of Tan practitioners'

value systems. But we'll probably never know for sure because Lonny deigned

not to lower himself and " expound a bit " on what he was enigmatically

putting forth. attempted to translate:

 

" Lonny has a good point here...What Lonny is speaking about here is very

profound. He is asking

whether the relief of symptomatic pain is the goal of the patient and

practitioner, or something deeper, which in my approach to Chinese

medicine would be alleviation of disharmonious patterns. Lonny may be

looking at more spiritual issues as well, including lifestyle,

emotions, outlook . . . "

 

I am not sure how he managed to divine all of that from Lonny's cryptic

one-liner. Of course, once again, meridian-style treatments do much more

than simply alleviate symptomatic pain. As far as Lonny possibly looking at

more spiritual issues, that's nice - especially if that is the patient's

goal - but why is it necessary to comment on other practitioners' value

systems at all? What's profound about that?

 

David Vitello responded to Lonny as well:

 

" Lonny,

 

Good point. I think there is a large influence Orange in Dr Tan

practitioners. There are quite few big name Dr Tan'rs practitioners

in WA -where I practice- and resonating with Angelina, they seem to

me to be interested in fast paced busy practices with little care for

deeper healing. The Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent

with these guys. There is this whole Scientology- Singer-Dr Tan-Jimmy

Chang- Lotus seminar-collaborati on monster that is really a bit scary

to me...To not understand the effectiveness of local needling for some

disorders is

baffling. "

 

Well, to begin with, linking Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners in general with

Scientology, David Singer and colors (?) is preposterous. I had to google

Singer to even find out what the heck is being referenced. Here again we

also have the inaccurate slam on " little care for deeper healing " . And " The

Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent with these guys " also sounds

like a slam, but it's pointless to refute gibberish so I'm not even going to

attempt that. And yes, local needling can be effective but, in my

experience, meridian-style treatments provide quicker and deeper results so

I am really confused how you could interpret a stronger, quicker response as

being somehow sub-par. By the way, what color value is assigned to cheap

shots?

 

Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply disturbed to

see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically- derived modality

and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am also

very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm afraid

that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we are such

a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

promulgating this sort of division.

 

With all due respect,

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev -

Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear - I did not mean to imply that you

were one of the practitioners who was dissing those systems and I am in

complete agreement with your contention that practitioners need a strong

foundation from which to build - no matter which systems they are

integrating into their own particular treatment styles. And as I recall,

you also seemed rather taken aback at Angela's comments.

 

What I'm trying to say is that, in my experience, this integration is

exactly what most Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners do. The T/C/T style is just

one of the modalities that I employ and that is the case with the other

T/C/T practitioners that I know personally. Since integrating these

systems, I have achieved better overall results - and not just on a

superficial, analgesic level.

 

You were basically included in this discussion because of your attempted

explanation of Lonny's comment. As far as Lonny's comment is concerned, on

the face of it he appears to be casting aspersions on the results obtained

by these methods and on the values of other practitioners who use them. He

was asked to explain his comment and has had ample time to clear the air,

but has obviously chosen not to do so. And I fail to see the necessity or

relevance in comparing and contrasting value systems at all. By apparently

casting aspersions on the value systems of others, he makes that the issue

within his cryptic, one-line interjection. Who is he to apparently imply

that Tan practitioners are only looking to achieve/are only capable of

achieving/are only satisfied with - superficial results? In lieu of any

further elucidation from him, and based on what I imagine is your correct

interpretation, this remark still seems to me to constitute a disrespectful

and, in the context of that discussion, pointless swipe at our colleagues.

And the last thing we as a profession need at this time is any more

divisiveness.

 

Respectfully,

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:33 PM, <zrosenbe wrote:

 

> Kim,

> I was hardly 'dissing' Tan/Tung acupuncture. If you look in

> another post, you will see that I defend Dr. Tan and his approach. My

> point was not to criticize this style or method, but simply point out

> that practitioners need to 'own' these methods by studying the root

> theory/principles behind them, to go beyond the 'end-user' status. As

> far as Lonny goes, I know him well, and I think his point that the

> therapy is not the issue, but what the practitioner and patient aim

> for in the healing relationship/context. Is it just symptom relief,

> systematic homeostasis, or something even deeper?

>

>

>

> On Feb 2, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Kim Blankenship wrote:

>

> > Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

> > disturbed to

> > see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

> > modality

> > and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

> > also

> > very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

> > afraid

> > that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

> > are such

> > a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> > promulgating this sort of division.

>

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi everybody:

 

There are some very important points being made in this discussion, so thank

you to everybody.

 

--Kim-

And the last thing we as a profession need at this time is any more

divisiveness.

---

 

Mystir also made the comment that " there is a chiropractor on every corner.... "

 

We need to remember something really important: one of the major things " the

chiropractors " had to do in order to achieve the solidarity that they now enjoy

was TO SEVERELY RESTRICT THEIR SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

Let me say that again:

 

Chiropractors now enjoy solidarity because THEY HAVE ACCEPTED A SEVERELY

RESTRICTED SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

It was a political decision that was made in order to survive as a profession.

To mark out turf, concessions need to be made.

 

I truly hope that we can find a different way in the end, although as it is, we

are losing acupuncture.

 

I hope that we, as a profession, can do better since we are one of the groups

in possession of a truly different paradigm from western medicine. As such, we

have the potential power to do something different. But we have to do it.

 

Thoughts?

 

Hugo

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On the surface, it would seem that the Tan, Chen and Tung systems are in

opposition with TCM, but this is not the case. In actuality, they work very

well with TCM herbals.

 

Acupuncture should be one of needling, treating and diagnosing through the

channels and collaterals. Whether treating mind, spirit, body, acupuncture

requires one to diagnose through the channels and treat through the

channels.

 

This would suggest you come up with a different diagnosis for herbals and

acupuncture.

 

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Kim Blankenship <kuangguiyuwrote:

 

> Z'ev -

> Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear - I did not mean to imply that

> you

> were one of the practitioners who was dissing those systems and I am in

> complete agreement with your contention that practitioners need a strong

> foundation from which to build - no matter which systems they are

> integrating into their own particular treatment styles. And as I recall,

> you also seemed rather taken aback at Angela's comments.

>

> What I'm trying to say is that, in my experience, this integration is

> exactly what most Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners do. The T/C/T style is just

> one of the modalities that I employ and that is the case with the other

> T/C/T practitioners that I know personally. Since integrating these

> systems, I have achieved better overall results - and not just on a

> superficial, analgesic level.

>

> You were basically included in this discussion because of your attempted

> explanation of Lonny's comment. As far as Lonny's comment is concerned, on

> the face of it he appears to be casting aspersions on the results obtained

> by these methods and on the values of other practitioners who use them. He

> was asked to explain his comment and has had ample time to clear the air,

> but has obviously chosen not to do so. And I fail to see the necessity or

> relevance in comparing and contrasting value systems at all. By apparently

> casting aspersions on the value systems of others, he makes that the issue

> within his cryptic, one-line interjection. Who is he to apparently imply

> that Tan practitioners are only looking to achieve/are only capable of

> achieving/are only satisfied with - superficial results? In lieu of any

> further elucidation from him, and based on what I imagine is your correct

> interpretation, this remark still seems to me to constitute a disrespectful

> and, in the context of that discussion, pointless swipe at our colleagues.

> And the last thing we as a profession need at this time is any more

> divisiveness.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:33 PM,

<zrosenbe<zrosenbe%40san.rr.com>>

> wrote:

>

> > Kim,

> > I was hardly 'dissing' Tan/Tung acupuncture. If you look in

> > another post, you will see that I defend Dr. Tan and his approach. My

> > point was not to criticize this style or method, but simply point out

> > that practitioners need to 'own' these methods by studying the root

> > theory/principles behind them, to go beyond the 'end-user' status. As

> > far as Lonny goes, I know him well, and I think his point that the

> > therapy is not the issue, but what the practitioner and patient aim

> > for in the healing relationship/context. Is it just symptom relief,

> > systematic homeostasis, or something even deeper?

> >

> >

> >

> > On Feb 2, 2009, at 5:26 PM, Kim Blankenship wrote:

> >

> > > Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

> > > disturbed to

> > > see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

> > > modality

> > > and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

> > > also

> > > very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

> > > afraid

> > > that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

> > > are such

> > > a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> > > promulgating this sort of division.

> >

> >

> > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> > San Diego, Ca. 92122

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Mark, thanks for making an excellent point, practice success is contingent on

many aspects, one's ability as a practitioner being only one. When I taught I

found that this was hard to accept for students, AND I also found that most

students were not very interested in business management AND their expectations

were often unrealistic in face of the economic context.

 

 

Regards,

Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D.

 

angelapfa

 

www.InnerhealthSalem.com

 

Phone: 503 364 3022

-

zedbowls

Chinese Medicine

Monday, February 02, 2009 7:15 PM

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung

styles of acupuncture

 

 

Hi Kim,

 

While schooled, and perhaps enlightened, many/most on this forum are

still human.

 

Perhaps the explanation you seek is simply " envy " in one form or

another. Envious of the income, or the physical surroundings,

envious of the volume, or the patient-perceived results?

 

Interesting too to read of conspiracy/secret society from one who

uses the secret language of some other secret group (spiral dynamics).

 

Chinese medicine works and it has for thousands of years when applied

correctly (within a wide array of styles). Given enough time, those

with concentration and aptitude can learn to be effective

practitioners.

 

Just being a good practitioner will not make one $ucce$$ful in

busine$$. A hard pill to swallow for some.

 

Mark Z

 

Chinese Medicine , Kim Blankenship

<kuangguiyu wrote:

>

> Dear Group:

>

> I am very disheartened and dismayed at all of the derogatory

remarks and

> misinformation concerning Tan/Chen/Tung-style acupuncture being

bandied

> about on this group. Many of these attacks have not just singled

out certain

> styles of acupuncture, but have rather focused on the morals and

ethics of

> the many of us who have incorporated these styles into our various

> practices.

>

> First I would like to address some of the misinformation and the

stunning

> lack of understanding of the basic principles of acupuncture and the

> Classics displayed by some of the detractors:

>

> Angela Pfaffenberger stated that, " A striking feature of Tan's

system is

> that it takes so little time, the clients do not need to disrobe,

and you

> don't really need a diagnosis, you can do the whole thing is a bout

10

> minutes...Plus the underlying disorder is never remedied,

consequently the

> client has to return and Tan also recommends frequent treatments... "

>

> First, of course there is a necessary diagnosis - to suggest

otherwise is

> ridiculous. And the comment that " the underlying disorder is never

> remedied " is also nonsense. Meridian-style acupuncture/Balance

Method

> focuses on diagnosing the " sick " meridian(s) which indicates the

location of

> physical pain as well as an underlying internal problem. This type

of

> treatment addresses root and branch and I am astounded that any

experienced

> practitioner could think for a second that bringing balance to a

patient's

> meridian system would only suffice to alleviate physical pain. And

I don't

> see any downside to being able to spend less time with each patient

and see

> more per hour as long as you are giving effective treatments.

Don't we all

> hope that clients return? I do, and I have personally had more

patients

> return to address other issues following a rather quick resolution

of their

> initial complaint. My results have been faster using this type of

treatment

> rather than the herbalized TCM style I was taught in school. And

frequent

> treatments - which happen to be the norm in China - can make a huge

> difference in results with stubborn, chronic conditions.

>

> Someone made the comment:

> " Many practitioners are claiming how once they switched to Dr Tan's

style,

> they saw much better results. "

>

> To which Lonny Jarrett replied:

> " Lonny: This would depend on one's value system regarding what

> constitutes " a better result " . "

>

> This seems a terribly arrogant and negative assessment of Tan

practitioners'

> value systems. But we'll probably never know for sure because

Lonny deigned

> not to lower himself and " expound a bit " on what he was

enigmatically

> putting forth. attempted to translate:

>

> " Lonny has a good point here...What Lonny is speaking about here is

very

> profound. He is asking

> whether the relief of symptomatic pain is the goal of the patient

and

> practitioner, or something deeper, which in my approach to Chinese

> medicine would be alleviation of disharmonious patterns. Lonny may

be

> looking at more spiritual issues as well, including lifestyle,

> emotions, outlook . . . "

>

> I am not sure how he managed to divine all of that from Lonny's

cryptic

> one-liner. Of course, once again, meridian-style treatments do

much more

> than simply alleviate symptomatic pain. As far as Lonny possibly

looking at

> more spiritual issues, that's nice - especially if that is the

patient's

> goal - but why is it necessary to comment on other practitioners'

value

> systems at all? What's profound about that?

>

> David Vitello responded to Lonny as well:

>

> " Lonny,

>

> Good point. I think there is a large influence Orange in Dr Tan

> practitioners. There are quite few big name Dr Tan'rs practitioners

> in WA -where I practice- and resonating with Angelina, they seem to

> me to be interested in fast paced busy practices with little care

for

> deeper healing. The Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent

> with these guys. There is this whole Scientology-Singer-Dr Tan-Jimmy

> Chang- Lotus seminar-collaboration monster that is really a bit

scary

> to me...To not understand the effectiveness of local needling for

some

> disorders is

> baffling. "

>

> Well, to begin with, linking Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners in general

with

> Scientology, David Singer and colors (?) is preposterous. I had to

google

> Singer to even find out what the heck is being referenced. Here

again we

> also have the inaccurate slam on " little care for deeper healing " .

And " The

> Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent with these guys "

also sounds

> like a slam, but it's pointless to refute gibberish so I'm not even

going to

> attempt that. And yes, local needling can be effective but, in my

> experience, meridian-style treatments provide quicker and deeper

results so

> I am really confused how you could interpret a stronger, quicker

response as

> being somehow sub-par. By the way, what color value is assigned to

cheap

> shots?

>

> Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

disturbed to

> see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

modality

> and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

also

> very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

afraid

> that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

are such

> a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> promulgating this sort of division.

>

> With all due respect,

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree with you both entirely about what it takes to be a good practitioner

AND a successful one. A number of my fellow students were much more

concerned with memorizing information that was likely to be on the boards

than with the practice management class that some seemed to see as more of

an unnecessary intrusion into their schooling. I was most fortunate to hold

the position as assistant office manager and, ultimately, office manager of

a successful acupuncture clinic while I was in school. It was that

invaluable experience that has been most meaningful to me in attaining a

level of economic success in my practice.

Take care -

 

Kim

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. <

angelapfa wrote:

 

> Mark, thanks for making an excellent point, practice success is

> contingent on many aspects, one's ability as a practitioner being only one.

> When I taught I found that this was hard to accept for students, AND I also

> found that most students were not very interested in business management AND

> their expectations were often unrealistic in face of the economic context.

>

> Regards,

> Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D.

>

> angelapfa <angelapfa%40comcast.net>

>

> www.InnerhealthSalem.com

>

> Phone: 503 364 3022

>

> -

> zedbowls

> To:

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>

> Monday, February 02, 2009 7:15 PM

> Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung

> styles of acupuncture

>

> Hi Kim,

>

> While schooled, and perhaps enlightened, many/most on this forum are

> still human.

>

> Perhaps the explanation you seek is simply " envy " in one form or

> another. Envious of the income, or the physical surroundings,

> envious of the volume, or the patient-perceived results?

>

> Interesting too to read of conspiracy/secret society from one who

> uses the secret language of some other secret group (spiral dynamics).

>

> Chinese medicine works and it has for thousands of years when applied

> correctly (within a wide array of styles). Given enough time, those

> with concentration and aptitude can learn to be effective

> practitioners.

>

> Just being a good practitioner will not make one $ucce$$ful in

> busine$$. A hard pill to swallow for some.

>

> Mark Z

>

> --- In

Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\

ogroups.com>,

> Kim Blankenship

> <kuangguiyu wrote:

> >

> > Dear Group:

> >

> > I am very disheartened and dismayed at all of the derogatory

> remarks and

> > misinformation concerning Tan/Chen/Tung-style acupuncture being

> bandied

> > about on this group. Many of these attacks have not just singled

> out certain

> > styles of acupuncture, but have rather focused on the morals and

> ethics of

> > the many of us who have incorporated these styles into our various

> > practices.

> >

> > First I would like to address some of the misinformation and the

> stunning

> > lack of understanding of the basic principles of acupuncture and the

> > Classics displayed by some of the detractors:

> >

> > Angela Pfaffenberger stated that, " A striking feature of Tan's

> system is

> > that it takes so little time, the clients do not need to disrobe,

> and you

> > don't really need a diagnosis, you can do the whole thing is a bout

> 10

> > minutes...Plus the underlying disorder is never remedied,

> consequently the

> > client has to return and Tan also recommends frequent treatments... "

> >

> > First, of course there is a necessary diagnosis - to suggest

> otherwise is

> > ridiculous. And the comment that " the underlying disorder is never

> > remedied " is also nonsense. Meridian-style acupuncture/Balance

> Method

> > focuses on diagnosing the " sick " meridian(s) which indicates the

> location of

> > physical pain as well as an underlying internal problem. This type

> of

> > treatment addresses root and branch and I am astounded that any

> experienced

> > practitioner could think for a second that bringing balance to a

> patient's

> > meridian system would only suffice to alleviate physical pain. And

> I don't

> > see any downside to being able to spend less time with each patient

> and see

> > more per hour as long as you are giving effective treatments.

> Don't we all

> > hope that clients return? I do, and I have personally had more

> patients

> > return to address other issues following a rather quick resolution

> of their

> > initial complaint. My results have been faster using this type of

> treatment

> > rather than the herbalized TCM style I was taught in school. And

> frequent

> > treatments - which happen to be the norm in China - can make a huge

> > difference in results with stubborn, chronic conditions.

> >

> > Someone made the comment:

> > " Many practitioners are claiming how once they switched to Dr Tan's

> style,

> > they saw much better results. "

> >

> > To which Lonny Jarrett replied:

> > " Lonny: This would depend on one's value system regarding what

> > constitutes " a better result " . "

> >

> > This seems a terribly arrogant and negative assessment of Tan

> practitioners'

> > value systems. But we'll probably never know for sure because

> Lonny deigned

> > not to lower himself and " expound a bit " on what he was

> enigmatically

> > putting forth. attempted to translate:

> >

> > " Lonny has a good point here...What Lonny is speaking about here is

> very

> > profound. He is asking

> > whether the relief of symptomatic pain is the goal of the patient

> and

> > practitioner, or something deeper, which in my approach to Chinese

> > medicine would be alleviation of disharmonious patterns. Lonny may

> be

> > looking at more spiritual issues as well, including lifestyle,

> > emotions, outlook . . . "

> >

> > I am not sure how he managed to divine all of that from Lonny's

> cryptic

> > one-liner. Of course, once again, meridian-style treatments do

> much more

> > than simply alleviate symptomatic pain. As far as Lonny possibly

> looking at

> > more spiritual issues, that's nice - especially if that is the

> patient's

> > goal - but why is it necessary to comment on other practitioners'

> value

> > systems at all? What's profound about that?

> >

> > David Vitello responded to Lonny as well:

> >

> > " Lonny,

> >

> > Good point. I think there is a large influence Orange in Dr Tan

> > practitioners. There are quite few big name Dr Tan'rs practitioners

> > in WA -where I practice- and resonating with Angelina, they seem to

> > me to be interested in fast paced busy practices with little care

> for

> > deeper healing. The Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent

> > with these guys. There is this whole Scientology-Singer-Dr Tan-Jimmy

> > Chang- Lotus seminar-collaboration monster that is really a bit

> scary

> > to me...To not understand the effectiveness of local needling for

> some

> > disorders is

> > baffling. "

> >

> > Well, to begin with, linking Tan/Chen/Tung practitioners in general

> with

> > Scientology, David Singer and colors (?) is preposterous. I had to

> google

> > Singer to even find out what the heck is being referenced. Here

> again we

> > also have the inaccurate slam on " little care for deeper healing " .

> And " The

> > Orange values of $bling are definetly apparent with these guys "

> also sounds

> > like a slam, but it's pointless to refute gibberish so I'm not even

> going to

> > attempt that. And yes, local needling can be effective but, in my

> > experience, meridian-style treatments provide quicker and deeper

> results so

> > I am really confused how you could interpret a stronger, quicker

> response as

> > being somehow sub-par. By the way, what color value is assigned to

> cheap

> > shots?

> >

> > Sorry to have gone on so long with this post, but I am deeply

> disturbed to

> > see learned practitioners dissing an effective, Classically-derived

> modality

> > and, even more, showing such disrespect for their colleagues. I am

> also

> > very curious as to what can possibly motivate such a response. I'm

> afraid

> > that it is just this sort of thinking that is at the core of why we

> are such

> > a fractured, divided profession. And this is no time to be further

> > promulgating this sort of division.

> >

> > With all due respect,

> >

> > Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hugo

Chiropractors have a limited scope of practice,

But the practice is itself as diverse as it gets.

Diversity and solidarity are there strengths.

We've got the diversity, but lack solidarity.

Also, efficacy keeps the profession alive.

Not one person can claim to be a superior physician

For all of the cases and personalities that exist.

So,it's useful to retain diversity on a clinical level

And increase professional group solidarity on a

National level.

K

 

Sent from my iPhone

 

On Feb 3, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote:

 

> Hi everybody:

>

> There are some very important points being made in this discussion,

> so thank you to everybody.

>

> --Kim-

> And the last thing we as a profession need at this time is any more

> divisiveness.

> ---

>

> Mystir also made the comment that " there is a chiropractor on every

> corner.... "

>

> We need to remember something really important: one of the major

> things " the chiropractors " had to do in order to achieve the

> solidarity that they now enjoy was TO SEVERELY RESTRICT THEIR SCOPE

> OF PRACTICE.

>

> Let me say that again:

>

> Chiropractors now enjoy solidarity because THEY HAVE ACCEPTED A

> SEVERELY RESTRICTED SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

>

> It was a political decision that was made in order to survive as a

> profession. To mark out turf, concessions need to be made.

>

> I truly hope that we can find a different way in the end, although

> as it is, we are losing acupuncture.

>

> I hope that we, as a profession, can do better since we are one of

> the groups in possession of a truly different paradigm from western

> medicine. As such, we have the potential power to do something

> different. But we have to do it.

>

> Thoughts?

>

> Hugo

>

> ________________________________

> Hugo Ramiro

> http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi John!

 

My point is strictly about the history of licensure and how " social closure "

(meaning no one can be a chiro w/o chiro assoc saying ok) was achieved for the

chiropractic profession.

Practicing diversely within a limited scope is fine (for chiros), but that's

not what I am getting at.

 

Point 1:

I would rather not give up most of my medicine's legitimate scope of practice

in order to achieve social closure. As it is, we are giving up acupuncture. We

may give up more, for example gua sha to chiro's using the " grasten method " and

astragalus to " green MDs " prescribing non-prophylactically for immune boosting

reasons (guffaw.) and on and on. It seems, sometimes, when I lose faith, that we

will be dissassembled, our varying modalities dispersed to the other professions

with nothing left for us.

 

Point 2:

It may be that, as a profession, we have such a hard time unifying exactly

*because* we are " plural and heterogeneous " (Scheid, Bensky). Our profession

*values* tolerant autonomy. Unfortunately this turns into infighting because we

AGAIN **buy into** the western formulaic Standard linearity of being!!!

It continues to be my opnion that as long as we continue to buy into an alien

tradition that is non-harmonic with ours, we will betray OUR tradition and cause

it to rot.

What we buy into:

STANDARDS - the average man whom I know does exist, yessiree

EVIDENCE - ignoring that interpretation plays with evidence the way a cat

flirts with a mouse. Meaning " tears it into ribbons " .

UNBIASED OBJECTIVITY - obscenely forgetting that consciousness ALWAYS remains.

 

As you said John, we HAVE diversity, we HAVE efficacy, and we need to retain

our diversity, and yet put forth a unified front on a professional level.

 

We will NOT achieve this if we keep buying into " standards " (whatever that

means), " evidence " (so long as it's final) and unbiased objectivity (as long as

I am the one describing my standardised evidence).

 

We are not a naive profession except in terms of our regard for medical

science.

 

Hugo

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Johnkokko <johnkokko

" Chinese Medicine "

<Chinese Medicine >

Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 20:21:37

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles

of acupuncture

 

 

 

 

Hugo

Chiropractors have a limited scope of practice,

But the practice is itself as diverse as it gets.

Diversity and solidarity are there strengths.

We've got the diversity, but lack solidarity.

Also, efficacy keeps the profession alive.

Not one person can claim to be a superior physician

For all of the cases and personalities that exist.

So,it's useful to retain diversity on a clinical level

And increase professional group solidarity on a

National level.

K

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Very well said, Hugo. . .

 

 

On Feb 3, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote:

 

> Hi John!

>

> My point is strictly about the history of licensure and how " social

> closure " (meaning no one can be a chiro w/o chiro assoc saying ok)

> was achieved for the chiropractic profession.

> Practicing diversely within a limited scope is fine (for chiros),

> but that's not what I am getting at.

>

> Point 1:

> I would rather not give up most of my medicine's legitimate scope of

> practice in order to achieve social closure. As it is, we are giving

> up acupuncture. We may give up more, for example gua sha to chiro's

> using the " grasten method " and astragalus to " green MDs " prescribing

> non-prophylactically for immune boosting reasons (guffaw.) and on

> and on. It seems, sometimes, when I lose faith, that we will be

> dissassembled, our varying modalities dispersed to the other

> professions with nothing left for us.

>

> Point 2:

> It may be that, as a profession, we have such a hard time unifying

> exactly *because* we are " plural and heterogeneous " (Scheid,

> Bensky). Our profession *values* tolerant autonomy. Unfortunately

> this turns into infighting because we AGAIN **buy into** the western

> formulaic Standard linearity of being!!!

> It continues to be my opnion that as long as we continue to buy into

> an alien tradition that is non-harmonic with ours, we will betray

> OUR tradition and cause it to rot.

> What we buy into:

> STANDARDS - the average man whom I know does exist, yessiree

> EVIDENCE - ignoring that interpretation plays with evidence the way

> a cat flirts with a mouse. Meaning " tears it into ribbons " .

> UNBIASED OBJECTIVITY - obscenely forgetting that consciousness

> ALWAYS remains.

>

> As you said John, we HAVE diversity, we HAVE efficacy, and we need

> to retain our diversity, and yet put forth a unified front on a

> professional level.

>

> We will NOT achieve this if we keep buying into

> " standards " (whatever that means), " evidence " (so long as it's

> final) and unbiased objectivity (as long as I am the one describing

> my standardised evidence).

>

> We are not a naive profession except in terms of our regard for

> medical science.

>

> Hugo

>

> ________________________________

> Hugo Ramiro

> http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

>

> ________________________________

> Johnkokko <johnkokko

> " Chinese Medicine "

<Chinese Medicine

> >

> Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 20:21:37

> Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/

> Tung styles of acupuncture

>

> Hugo

> Chiropractors have a limited scope of practice,

> But the practice is itself as diverse as it gets.

> Diversity and solidarity are there strengths.

> We've got the diversity, but lack solidarity.

> Also, efficacy keeps the profession alive.

> Not one person can claim to be a superior physician

> For all of the cases and personalities that exist.

> So,it's useful to retain diversity on a clinical level

> And increase professional group solidarity on a

> National level.

> K

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hugo,

 

I agree with you that Standards, Evidence, and Objectivity are quite

a bit more complicated than they seem on the surface. It's one of the

things I've found most interesting/baffling about the practice of

medicine.

 

Nevertheless, I'd have to respectfully disagree with the practitioner

who posted " There is no one right/best/correct/superior/enlightened

way to practice this medicine. " Are all systems equally valid and

only the practitioner's skill of interpreting and applying those

systems matters? That seems a bit far fetched to me. ALL systems,

theories, methods are not equal, though SOME different systems may

well be equally valid.

 

There may not be ONE right way to practice this medicine, but it

seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're ok " in our profession.

Any ideas on how to remedy that?

 

Carl

[Guest guest]

Carl -

I'm confused. You say you disagree with my statement that " There is no one

right/best/correct/superior/enlightened way to practice this medicine. "

Then you follow this up by stating " There may not be ONE right way to

practice this medicine, but it seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're

ok " in our profession. " Barring your use of capital letters, it sounds like

we ARE in agreement. And I would certainly agree that all systems, theories

and methods are not equal, but said equality was in no way implicit in what

I was stating. I also was not implying anything along the lines of " I'm OK,

You're OK " and I've never been a big proponent of that ideology. I was

motivated to post here because some practitioners were misrepresenting a

certain style of acupuncture and casting aspersions on the character of

those who practice it. And I feel that there is too much of that in our

profession and that it is equally, if not more, damaging than " I'm OK.

You're OK. "

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:57 AM, carlstimson <carlstimson wrote:

 

> Hugo,

>

> I agree with you that Standards, Evidence, and Objectivity are quite

> a bit more complicated than they seem on the surface. It's one of the

> things I've found most interesting/baffling about the practice of

> medicine.

>

> Nevertheless, I'd have to respectfully disagree with the practitioner

> who posted " There is no one right/best/correct/superior/enlightened

> way to practice this medicine. " Are all systems equally valid and

> only the practitioner's skill of interpreting and applying those

> systems matters? That seems a bit far fetched to me. ALL systems,

> theories, methods are not equal, though SOME different systems may

> well be equally valid.

>

> There may not be ONE right way to practice this medicine, but it

> seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're ok " in our profession.

> Any ideas on how to remedy that?

>

> Carl

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Carl,

I " m not sure if you were referring to what I wrote...

" efficacy keeps the profession alive.

Not one person can claim to be a superior physicianFor all of the cases and

personalities that exist. "

 

I didn't say that all systems or all practitioners are equal in skill or in

awareness.

 

But, it is egotistical in any light for us to think that even Zhang Zhong

Jing,

who is closest to the formula God, could heal all people or is superior to

say.. Hua Tuo for extracting a brain tumor.

He writes in his preface of the Shang han za bing lun that at least half of

all people could be treated with correct usage of the formulas in his book.

But, there's always more to learn.

 

I'm a firm believer that direct bio-feedback of our treatments ( " instant

karma " ) is superior to just poking people without palpation or recognition

of changes. For acupuncture treatment, this translates as checking for

pulse and hara changes, myo-facial release etc. in order to illuminate our

understanding of the treatment effects. For diagnosis, this includes

understanding the person as a holistic and spiritual entity, individualized

and unique, but temporary as Qi moving through bones, blood and flesh. For

formula making, this translates as using less herbs, ones that have harmonic

relationship, correct dosing, are consistent with the patient's conformation

and condition and are based on the knowledge accrrued through the classical

canons.

 

Equal vs Fair are two concepts that are investigated in the Chuang Tzu

chapter 2. Most scholars don't believe that Chuang Tzu was saying that

we're all equal or all thoughts are equal. Legalists, Mystics and

Ritualists are all fodder for his commentary. So, maybe we're all equally

laughable and that's a fair thing to say.

 

K.

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:57 AM, carlstimson <carlstimson wrote:

 

> Hugo,

>

> I agree with you that Standards, Evidence, and Objectivity are quite

> a bit more complicated than they seem on the surface. It's one of the

> things I've found most interesting/baffling about the practice of

> medicine.

>

> Nevertheless, I'd have to respectfully disagree with the practitioner

> who posted " There is no one right/best/correct/superior/enlightened

> way to practice this medicine. " Are all systems equally valid and

> only the practitioner's skill of interpreting and applying those

> systems matters? That seems a bit far fetched to me. ALL systems,

> theories, methods are not equal, though SOME different systems may

> well be equally valid.

>

> There may not be ONE right way to practice this medicine, but it

> seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're ok " in our profession.

> Any ideas on how to remedy that?

>

> Carl

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

www.tcmreview.com

 

The Four Reliances:

Do not rely upon the individual, but rely upon the teaching.

As far as teachings go, do not rely upon the words alone, but rely upon the

meaning that underlies them.

Regarding the meaning, do not rely upon the provisional meaning alone, but

rely upon the definitive meaning.

And regarding the definitive meaning, do not rely upon ordinary

consciousness, but rely upon wisdom awareness.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Carl and all:

 

I agree that not all systems are created equal - what seems to be the real

problem in my opinion, is the eradication of certain systems and the palcement

of others at the peak. This is not something entirely avoidable, but I think

that historically, we can see that tolerance is possible.

For example, in China there were imperial schools of CM - but in general they

did not outlaw the other schools. I think that would work.

It's also like Chinese Martial Arts - to my mind there are clear issues of

superiority etc between the different styles, but I can also say that there is a

particular personality to each style which, when fitted to the correct person,

creates harmony and even happiness. We need to respect plurality etc - it goes

far beyond our immediate perception of what is good or bad - everything has a

function and a reason. To eradicate what is at the margins leaves us with no

where to go actually - it is the margins of our consciousness which provide the

new seeds of growth and expansion.

 

As far as your question regarding too much of " I'm ok you're ok " , a good way to

frame it might be the Buddhist concept of the three arrogances:

 

1. The arrogance of thinking that one is better than all the others (this is the

commonly accepted definition of arrogance)

2. The arrogance of thinking that one is worse than all the others (self-pity is

a terrible form of arrogance)

3. The arrogance of thinking that no one is better or worse than anyone else

(this is the arrogance to which you refer, and it is an arrogance of stasis,

stagnation and ossification)

 

I feel that just being aware of each type and seeing it arise etc is the most

important thing. If we all stay in dialogue like this, we will each take the

relevant concept, elaborate upon it, promote it, and our profession will regain

its depth and internal force.

 

That would be my hope, anyway.

 

Thoughts?

Hugo

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

carlstimson <carlstimson

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 8:57:11

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles

of acupuncture

 

 

Hugo,

 

I agree with you that Standards, Evidence, and Objectivity are quite

a bit more complicated than they seem on the surface. It's one of the

things I've found most interesting/ baffling about the practice of

medicine.

 

Nevertheless, I'd have to respectfully disagree with the practitioner

who posted " There is no one right/best/correct/ superior/ enlightened

way to practice this medicine. " Are all systems equally valid and

only the practitioner' s skill of interpreting and applying those

systems matters? That seems a bit far fetched to me. ALL systems,

theories, methods are not equal, though SOME different systems may

well be equally valid.

 

There may not be ONE right way to practice this medicine, but it

seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're ok " in our profession.

Any ideas on how to remedy that?

 

Carl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

As part of my PhD in psychology I studied the research in psychotherapy outcome,

and I think some of what they (the psychotherapists) found after decades of

agrueing over techniques, is relevant to this discussion

1. Some therapists get better results than others, however, technique makes a

very minor contribution to the outcome.

2. Better results are due to " common factors " that are not specific to

technique, for example " rapport "

 

This comes to mind, because I was taught that you never needle a point unless

it's " ashi, " however when I later taught in an acupuncture school, that was not

part of the clinical teaching, Students developed a Dx and a TX following the

interview and showed it to me, I signed it and they performed the treatment.

Later these students took the Tan class and learned to only needle if the point

is " ashi " , now they got better results. I read all the Tan books and attend his

class in person, and my results did not improve at all...maybe it's just due to

using " ashi " points??? Just a thought...

 

Regards,

Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D.

 

angelapfa

 

www.InnerhealthSalem.com

 

Phone: 503 364 3022

-

Kim Blankenship

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:10 AM

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung

styles of acupuncture

 

 

Carl -

I'm confused. You say you disagree with my statement that " There is no one

right/best/correct/superior/enlightened way to practice this medicine. "

Then you follow this up by stating " There may not be ONE right way to

practice this medicine, but it seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're

ok " in our profession. " Barring your use of capital letters, it sounds like

we ARE in agreement. And I would certainly agree that all systems, theories

and methods are not equal, but said equality was in no way implicit in what

I was stating. I also was not implying anything along the lines of " I'm OK,

You're OK " and I've never been a big proponent of that ideology. I was

motivated to post here because some practitioners were misrepresenting a

certain style of acupuncture and casting aspersions on the character of

those who practice it. And I feel that there is too much of that in our

profession and that it is equally, if not more, damaging than " I'm OK.

You're OK. "

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:57 AM, carlstimson <carlstimson wrote:

 

> Hugo,

>

> I agree with you that Standards, Evidence, and Objectivity are quite

> a bit more complicated than they seem on the surface. It's one of the

> things I've found most interesting/baffling about the practice of

> medicine.

>

> Nevertheless, I'd have to respectfully disagree with the practitioner

> who posted " There is no one right/best/correct/superior/enlightened

> way to practice this medicine. " Are all systems equally valid and

> only the practitioner's skill of interpreting and applying those

> systems matters? That seems a bit far fetched to me. ALL systems,

> theories, methods are not equal, though SOME different systems may

> well be equally valid.

>

> There may not be ONE right way to practice this medicine, but it

> seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're ok " in our profession.

> Any ideas on how to remedy that?

>

> Carl

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

From what little I know about it, I agree Robert. I just wanted to make that

clearer.

 

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Robert Chu <chusauli wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the surface, it would seem that the Tan, Chen and Tung systems

are in

 

opposition with TCM, but this is not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Again, the diagnosis of acupuncture is through the channels. Find out what

channel is out of balance and insert points into the affected channel.

Acupuncture does not have dioagnosis like Liver Qi Stagnation or Sp Qi

Deficiency - those are examples of herbal diagnosis. As for the needling Ah

Shi, that is done in the Ling Shu and other older texts - getting channels

palpated to see affected channels.

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM, mystir <ykcul_ritsym wrote:

 

> From what little I know about it, I agree Robert. I just wanted to make

> that clearer.

>

> --- On Tue, 2/3/09, Robert Chu <chusauli <chusauli%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

>

> On the surface, it would seem that the Tan, Chen and Tung systems are in

>

> opposition with TCM, but this is not the case.

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

  Thanks. I have been taught a kind of herbal diagnosis to acupuncture, also

some emphasized more hands on palpation of channel and off channel and ashi.

Seems perfectly natural. Some, the chrono-acupuncture methods, some explained

the use of vertical and horizontal lines and zones on the human's body. So much

to this. Herbs have a door they enter from, acupuncture has it's door, chikung

too. Inspiration and emotional rebuilding and revelation has its door.

 When I was just starting learning, a woman came for treatment. She was

suffering pain badly from a drastic total radical mastectomy of a few years ago.

To look at the wounds and scars made you sympathize immediately. The main focus

of the pain eventually(after palpation and separating the fibers and nodules)

was in a jagged scar terminating in her armpit. I told my teacher I wanted to

use Hrt1, it seemed to be the one. He said ok(he had most of his training and

practice in china, so I thought if he felt hrt channel was taboo, he'd say so).

I asked him, with all the disfigurement there on this woman, would the point

location be different. He said, 'no, point is in the same place'.

 A little of what I think/thought is/was, points sometimes move a very little,

or the approach to them sometimes moves a little, but we aren't dealing with

tissue exactly.  So she did get relief, unbearable becomes bearable. She really

felt better. I wonder how all her experience affected her heart emotionallt too.

 This is really fascinating to me, Robert. If you or anybody else has anything

to say about this art, I'm all ears. Thank you. Fran

 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Robert Chu <chusauli wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Again, the diagnosis of acupuncture is through the channels. Find

out what channel is out of balance and insert points into the affected

channel.Acupuncture does not have dioagnosis like Liver Qi Stagnation or Sp Qi

Deficiency - those are examples of herbal diagnosis. As for the needling AhShi,

that is done in the Ling Shu and other older texts - getting channels palpated

to see affected channels.

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM, mystir <ykcul_ritsym@ > wrote:

 

 

 

> From what little I know about it, I agree Robert. I just wanted to make

 

> that clearer.

 

>

 

> --- On Tue, 2/3/09, Robert Chu <chusauli (AT) gmail (DOT) com <chusauli%40gmail. com>>

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

> On the surface, it would seem that the Tan, Chen and Tung systems are in

 

>

 

> opposition with TCM, but this is not the case.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

[Guest guest]

 Oh, and also the micro system allow ashi for diagnosis too. Fantastic.

 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, Robert Chu <chusauli wrote:

Robert Chu <chusauli

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles

of acupuncture

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 8:25 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, the diagnosis of acupuncture is through the channels. Find

out what

 

channel is out of balance and insert points into the affected channel.

 

Acupuncture does not have dioagnosis like Liver Qi Stagnation or Sp Qi

 

Deficiency - those are examples of herbal diagnosis. As for the needling Ah

 

Shi, that is done in the Ling Shu and other older texts - getting channels

 

palpated to see affected channels.

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM, mystir <ykcul_ritsym@ > wrote:

 

 

 

> From what little I know about it, I agree Robert. I just wanted to make

 

> that clearer.

 

>

 

> --- On Tue, 2/3/09, Robert Chu <chusauli (AT) gmail (DOT) com <chusauli%40gmail. com>>

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

> On the surface, it would seem that the Tan, Chen and Tung systems are in

 

>

 

> opposition with TCM, but this is not the case.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

[Guest guest]

" It's also like Chinese Martial Arts - to my mind there are clear

issues of superiority etc between the different styles, but I can also

say that there is a particular personality to each style which, when

fitted to the correct person, creates harmony and even happiness. "

 

Yes! Great way to put it. I was thinking of making an analogy about

basketball styles (Kobe vs. Shaq) but your words are better.

 

" We need to respect plurality etc - it goes far beyond our immediate

perception of what is good or bad - everything has a function and a

reason. To eradicate what is at the margins leaves us with no where to

go actually - it is the margins of our consciousness which provide the

new seeds of growth and expansion. "

 

Again, I agree, but I don't think it's that simple. I'm not so

concerned with marginal techniques that I may not jive with, but are

only practiced by a few practitioners who resonate with them. I'm more

concerned with poor ideas/techniques become popular and turn into

dogma. Even good ideas/techniques have the opportunity to stagnate

into dogma if the practitioners don't approach them with an attitude

of exploration and direct experience. How to figure out if what one is

currently doing is valid? How to make that decision as a profession? I

have no solid idea now. I'm barely beginning to grasp the scope of the

matter.

 

>

> As far as your question regarding too much of " I'm ok you're ok " , a

good way to frame it might be the Buddhist concept of the three

arrogances:

>

> 1. The arrogance of thinking that one is better than all the others

(this is the commonly accepted definition of arrogance)

> 2. The arrogance of thinking that one is worse than all the others

(self-pity is a terrible form of arrogance)

> 3. The arrogance of thinking that no one is better or worse than

anyone else (this is the arrogance to which you refer, and it is an

arrogance of stasis, stagnation and ossification)

>

> I feel that just being aware of each type and seeing it arise etc

is the most important thing. If we all stay in dialogue like this, we

will each take the relevant concept, elaborate upon it, promote it,

and our profession will regain its depth and internal force.

>

> That would be my hope, anyway.

>

> Thoughts?

> Hugo

>

>

> ________________________________

> Hugo Ramiro

> http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> carlstimson <carlstimson

> Chinese Medicine

> Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 8:57:11

> Re: Response to the recent thread regarding

Tan/Chen/Tung styles of acupuncture

>

>

> Hugo,

>

> I agree with you that Standards, Evidence, and Objectivity are quite

> a bit more complicated than they seem on the surface. It's one of the

> things I've found most interesting/ baffling about the practice of

> medicine.

>

> Nevertheless, I'd have to respectfully disagree with the practitioner

> who posted " There is no one right/best/correct/ superior/ enlightened

> way to practice this medicine. " Are all systems equally valid and

> only the practitioner' s skill of interpreting and applying those

> systems matters? That seems a bit far fetched to me. ALL systems,

> theories, methods are not equal, though SOME different systems may

> well be equally valid.

>

> There may not be ONE right way to practice this medicine, but it

> seems like we have too much " I'm ok, you're ok " in our profession.

> Any ideas on how to remedy that?

>

> Carl

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Kim,

 

Ok, looks like I misread your post. It seems like we are in agreement.

My apologies

 

Carl

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , Robert Chu

<chusauli wrote:

>

> Again, the diagnosis of acupuncture is through the channels. Find

out what

> channel is out of balance and insert points into the affected channel.

> Acupuncture does not have dioagnosis like Liver Qi Stagnation or Sp Qi

> Deficiency - those are examples of herbal diagnosis. As for the

needling Ah

> Shi, that is done in the Ling Shu and other older texts - getting

channels

> palpated to see affected channels.

 

This isn't true there is plenty in lingshu about which pulse, which

needle technique, which points to use...

 

I think bagua systems are cool, but I don't think you can get as rapid

as result treating things like slipped discs and out of alignment

vertebrae without doing local points too, tui na or sotai or something

to correct alignment...Over time distal needling only may cure these

conditions but the result will be slow...

 

" Jingqi pulse diagnosis " as practiced by " community acupuncture "

centers is based on faulty theory from misunderstood readers of the

lingshu I am writing an article on it right now, I'll upload to the

group when its done...

Morant, van Nghi, Jeff Yuen those guys practice real classic Chinese

acupuncture, what's on nccaom and Cali exams is a joke, same goes for

standard " tcm " acupuncture which is taught in most schools its a

fragment of the Chinese system in ling shu, nan jing etc, da cheng

etc...- why teach luo points, reunion points, 5 shu system, mu/shu

points then never use it correctly, just teach it haphazardly then

guess what points to use, I am so embarrassed by the treatments some

of my esteemed colleagues are giving patients, the egos that go along

with them are worse...

 

>

> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:13 PM, mystir <ykcul_ritsym wrote:

>

> > From what little I know about it, I agree Robert. I just wanted

to make

> > that clearer.

> >

> > --- On Tue, 2/3/09, Robert Chu <chusauli <chusauli%40gmail.com>>

> > wrote:

> >

> > On the surface, it would seem that the Tan, Chen and Tung systems

are in

> >

> > opposition with TCM, but this is not the case.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >