Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest guest

What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

By Guest guest, in Ayurveda, Health and Wellbeing

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

HI Donald:

 

Since you mentioned your income i had a few questions if you do not mind. Mid

6-figures, $400,000-600,000 per year? How is this generated? Treating patients

and charging $60-120 per tx or some other structure? Managing others,

commissions on others, charging rates under MD?

 

Also can you share what exactly you studied of the classics at DAOM, how many

hours of classes and what exactly was covered.

 

thanks so much,

david

 

Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407

wrote:

>

>

> Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice integral

medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and that is what

my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any " man " such a

Lonny, Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the answers to our

wonderful medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I do. If I followed

a particular man or style, then that's what I would be doing. But I practice

Dr. Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems.

>

> I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something right.

I went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am relatively

educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp. those that

haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much deeper level

that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it. And most of all,

I have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I have a booming

practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his own. That

applies to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters that were not

because they did not make the art a part of themselves.

>

>

>

> Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> johnkokko

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> Yes... we all practice medicine,

> but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

>

> Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

> We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we

> learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia

> of changes.

> That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest

> and comprehensive name for what we do.

>

> K

>

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

>

> >

> > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is

> > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our

> > TCM using specific methodology. But as f

>

> r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better

> > very quickly. Oh semantics...

> >

> >

> >

> > Don

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > johnkokko

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> > " Global " ? GCM?

> >

> > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people

> > who

> > developed the classics which are the foundation of

> > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

> > we've got.

> >

> > K

> >

> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > Revolution

> > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > John,

> > >

> > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is

> > to

> > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in

> > the

> > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > > according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what

> > we

> > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> > medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Here, here! I will continue to call it either TCM or Chinese medicine as well.

I'm certainly not going to confuse my patients by trying to get them to start

using a different term. Many times a day I say, " Well, in Chinese medicine... " .

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine ,

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> I don't understand the fuss. " Chinese medicine " in my opinion is good enough,

and that's what I will continue to call what I practice. In Chinese it is

'zhong-yi', which means Chinese medicine, in Japanese the herbal medicine is

called " Kanpo " or medicine of the Han (people), and I understand that it is the

same in Korea. The origins of the medicine are in the same classical texts such

as the Su Wen, Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, all of which were written and

developed in China.

>

> As far as indigenous forms of medicine go, if one practices " Japanese

acupuncture " , " Korean hand acupuncture " , " Tibetan medicine " , etc., why not just

say so? Rather than come up with some clumsy name to try to explain it all. .

>

>

> On Dec 13, 2009, at 11:50 AM, heylaurag wrote:

>

> > I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional

" AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about

AND it has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes

to TCM. As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at

lunch and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to

make themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine

proudly exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting a

Traditional formula! " .

> >

> > Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and

it makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact

that a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing

ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What

kind of business sense is that?!

> >

> > Chinese Medicine , acuman1@ wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM,

> > > richard@ writes:

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I wonder what others think.

> > > >

> > > > Richard James

> > > >

> > >

> > > The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a

> > > medical thought process that is

> > > based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the

> > > political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms

of using sense

> > > and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes

while

> > > recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature.

> > >

> > > The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive

thing

> > > and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to

> > > observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and

understood

> > > by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within

> > > Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought

processing

> > > are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in

> > > their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using

to

> > > change results.

> > >

> > > Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the

> > > different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each

> > > other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what

it is

> > > they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn

> > > different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them,

some

> > > integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is

> > > anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a

new view

> > > on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his

> > > observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them,

many have

> > > gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic

tools

> > > used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang,

and

> > > the interconnectedness of the body via meridians.

> > >

> > > But, that is just me.

> > >

> > > David Molony

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

We have a strong underground following that already knows us as " Traditional

" shortened to TCM or Chinese medicine. It makes no business

sense whatsoever to give that up. I have to say, our profession generally lacks

business sense, sadly.

 

Laura

 

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " Turiya Hill " <turiya

wrote:

>

> Hey there fellow practitioners

>

> Here's a koan for you: Who put the Chi in the word Chinese?

>

> Don't we , at heart and root, practice Chi Medicine/Healing/Health Care?

>

> For you consideration!

>

> Turiya Hill,

L.Ac.

>

> -

> Hugo Ramiro

> Chinese Medicine

> Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:25 PM

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

> Hi all:

>

> --Donald-

> Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

> ---

>

> I have several.

>

> Hugo

> (your points are well taken)

>

>

> ________________________________

> Hugo Ramiro

> http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> http://www.middlemedicine.org

>

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Hear, hear.... Rebranding anything take tremendous effort and capital,

let alone an entire profession. There is already so much confusion out

there about what we do. Even thought I use a traditional non-insertion

Japanese method of é‡ç¸ (is this even acupuncture?), I still call it

Chinese medicine and I don't even say anything when people refer to

what I do as TCM, even though technically it is not. All the good I do

helps build awareness of what we do and I am happy to help add to the

collective good will we are creating.

 

 

David Toone, L.Ac.

Health without Drugs or Surgery

105 Tivoli Gardens

Peachtree City, GA 30269

770.780.9608

info

www.davidtoone.com

 

On Dec 13, 2009, at 6:05 PM, heylaurag wrote:

 

> We have a strong underground following that already knows us as

> " Traditional " shortened to TCM or Chinese medicine.

> It makes no business sense whatsoever to give that up. I have to

> say, our profession generally lacks business sense, sadly.

>

> Laura

>

> Chinese Medicine , " Turiya Hill "

> <turiya wrote:

> >

> > Hey there fellow practitioners

> >

> > Here's a koan for you: Who put the Chi in the word Chinese?

> >

> > Don't we , at heart and root, practice Chi Medicine/Healing/Health

> Care?

> >

> > For you consideration!

> >

> > Turiya Hill, L.Ac.

> >

> > -

> > Hugo Ramiro

> > Chinese Medicine

> > Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:25 PM

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> > Hi all:

> >

> > --Donald-

> > Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

> > ---

> >

> > I have several.

> >

> > Hugo

> > (your points are well taken)

> >

> >

> > ________________________________

> > Hugo Ramiro

> > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> > http://www.middlemedicine.org

> >

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Hi Don, With that much education, I suspect you are in a similar position as

me--LOTS of student loans. I paid for my undergrad plus a masters in social

work from an expensive ivy league school plus the dual masters in acupuncture

and herbs with student loans. Then I was dumb enough not to start paying on it

right after I graduated (actually I couldn't afford to). So I also accumulated

massive interest. But...I really want to get a doctorate!

 

But I do work in a very deep way with the herbs, so I am not completely

convinced that a doctorate would educate me more than my own schooling by

practicing the medicine. Any thoughts on this? Also, how do you see enough

patients to make that much money if you also practice herbs (which take time)?

Do you have employees? Do you bill insurance? How much time do you spend with

each patient? I'd like to learn from you, so I appreciate anything that you can

share.

 

Working on taxes this year I am dismayed to discover just how little I actually

make when I take my student loan payments into consideration. But I turn down

new patients all the time because I don't feel I have the time to see them. So

I must be doing something wrong.

 

Thanks!

 

Laura

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407

wrote:

>

>

> Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice integral

medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and that is what

my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any " man " such a

Lonny, Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the answers to our

wonderful medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I do. If I followed

a particular man or style, then that's what I would be doing. But I practice

Dr. Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems.

>

> I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something right.

I went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am relatively

educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp. those that

haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much deeper level

that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it. And most of all,

I have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I have a booming

practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his own. That

applies to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters that were not

because they did not make the art a part of themselves.

>

>

>

> Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> johnkokko

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> Yes... we all practice medicine,

> but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

>

> Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

> We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we

> learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia

> of changes.

> That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest

> and comprehensive name for what we do.

>

> K

>

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

>

> >

> > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is

> > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our

> > TCM using specific methodology. But as f

>

> r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better

> > very quickly. Oh semantics...

> >

> >

> >

> > Don

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > johnkokko

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> > " Global " ? GCM?

> >

> > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people

> > who

> > developed the classics which are the foundation of

> > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

> > we've got.

> >

> > K

> >

> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > Revolution

> > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > John,

> > >

> > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is

> > to

> > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in

> > the

> > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > > according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what

> > we

> > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> > medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I really did not know what I was doing until about 3 years ago. I had been

perfecting my MET/integrated medicine methodology and had treated about 1000

hours or so without any remuneration. I could not see charging a patient when I

couldn't guarantee the results. After that initial experimentation period I

could consistantly (95%+) get resolution of any pain, neuropathy, or pathology

and decided I would begin charging patients. At first I took only cash patients

and charged $250 per treatment; and I got paid, too. But I noticed I was only

getting a particular class of patient and felt that what I did should be

available to all who desired it. (at this time I was practicing in San Diego

and teaching at PCOM)

 

 

 

In 2007 I got an opportunity to move back home to Louisiana and I took a job

offered by an MD. These folks burned me very badly and they stole money and

they tried to steal my methodology. However, what I learned from this is that I

could actually bill insurance for my treatments (that lesson cost me about

$200,000 or more). Thereafter, I teamed up with another MD and billed insurance

under his/her license; and got paid. I also got a contract to service 29

hospitals but it has taken be around 8 months to figure out how to bill. I now

have that figured out and have hired my first AOM practitioner and she has just

completed her training with me and I will put her in our first hospital. But I

have digressed a little.

 

 

 

I was able to bill right at $500,000 my first year working by myself, but had to

have two assistants helping me. I collected 80% of my billing (which is real

good, by the way). You must also understand this. The reason hospitals do not

want acupuncture is that there is no money in it at $50 to $80 per treatment.

Hospitals are a business and they need to make money. When I treat a patient I

get a minimum of $150 up to more than $400 for some patients. The downside is

that it takes me 1 to 2.5 hours to treat one patient (now you know why I need

assistants trained in my copyrighted methodology). I am very stingy in who I

show my methodology and have a full time lawyer on my staff to take care of

contracts. I don't give it away. My patients get well in a dramatic and

profound way; even those with " irreversible " nerve damage. The results are

immediate and if a patient does not get the promised results, they do not pay.

Needless to say, I get paid. In the last year I have returned money 4 times out

of over 3000 patient visits.

 

 

 

I now have another AOM practitioner working with me and we will see what I can

bill and collect now; however, it is yet to be seen.

 

 

 

So folks, that's it in a nut shell. I answered this same question last year on

this same site and I doubt that I will answer it again. Hope this satisfies

you.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac

 

 

 

P.S. As for the question " Do you use herbs? " The answer is yes. But not

nearly as often and I know longer use a compounding pharmacy. I use

teapill/patents. The methodology I use precludes my having to rely on herbs as

much, but I use them when I must. The patient must get better or I don't get

paid so I do whatever must be done to get the desired results. djs

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

heylaurag

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 00:32:30 +0000

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Don, With that much education, I suspect you are in a similar position as

me--LOTS of student loans. I paid for my undergrad plus a masters in social work

from an expensive ivy league school plus the dual masters in acupuncture and

herbs with student loans. Then I was dumb enough not to start paying on it right

after I graduated (actually I couldn't afford to). So I also accumulated massive

interest. But...I really want to get a doctorate!

 

But I do work in a very deep way with the herbs, so I am not completely

convinced that a doctorate would educate me more than my own schooling by

practicing the medicine. Any thoughts on this? Also, how do you see enough

patients to make that much money if you also practice herbs (which take time)?

Do you have employees? Do you bill insurance? How much time do you spend with

each patient? I'd like to learn from you, so I appreciate anything that you can

share.

 

Working on taxes this year I am dismayed to discover just how little I actually

make when I take my student loan payments into consideration. But I turn down

new patients all the time because I don't feel I have the time to see them. So I

must be doing something wrong.

 

Thanks!

 

Laura

 

Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407

wrote:

>

>

> Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice integral

medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and that is what

my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any " man " such a Lonny,

Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the answers to our wonderful

medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I do. If I followed a

particular man or style, then that's what I would be doing. But I practice Dr.

Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems.

>

> I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something right. I

went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am relatively

educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp. those that

haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much deeper level

that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it. And most of all, I

have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I have a booming

practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his own. That applies

to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters that were not because

they did not make the art a part of themselves.

>

>

>

> Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> johnkokko

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> Yes... we all practice medicine,

> but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

>

> Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

> We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we

> learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia

> of changes.

> That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest

> and comprehensive name for what we do.

>

> K

>

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

>

> >

> > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is

> > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our

> > TCM using specific methodology. But as f

>

> r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better

> > very quickly. Oh semantics...

> >

> >

> >

> > Don

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > johnkokko

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> > " Global " ? GCM?

> >

> > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people

> > who

> > developed the classics which are the foundation of

> > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

> > we've got.

> >

> > K

> >

> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > Revolution

> > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > John,

> > >

> > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is

> > to

> > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in

> > the

> > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > > according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what

> > we

> > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> > medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I answered the finance question just minutes ago so you can see my response to

that if it shows up on the group. As far as what exactly I studied, I really

get tired of answering that question. All one has to do is log on to PCOMs

doctorate program and pull up their syllabus. It's as easy as that. Needless

to say, I was quite pleased with the program and the outcomes. I don't regret

the money spent. However, when I went through the program I was in the first

graduating class. We started with 28 people and I graduated with 7 people.

Some graduated in later cohorts and some ABDd. When I went, it was full time

for 3 years and it was every weekend. I am retired from the military with 22

years and I can tell you that our doctoral class bonded closer than any wartime

military unit I was ever attached to. I graduated with Robin Tiberi, Greg

Sperber, Uchena (She'll forgive me but I still can't pronounce her last name) to

name just a few. And if any one of them called me tomorrow needing something,

I'd drop whatever I was doing and go help them. The DAOM program was an

experience I would not trade for any amount of money. It was worth it to me.

djs

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

singlewhip2001

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:54:12 +0000

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

HI Donald:

 

Since you mentioned your income i had a few questions if you do not mind. Mid

6-figures, $400,000-600,000 per year? How is this generated? Treating patients

and charging $60-120 per tx or some other structure? Managing others,

commissions on others, charging rates under MD?

 

Also can you share what exactly you studied of the classics at DAOM, how many

hours of classes and what exactly was covered.

 

thanks so much,

david

 

Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow <don83407

wrote:

>

>

> Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice integral

medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and that is what

my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any " man " such a Lonny,

Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the answers to our wonderful

medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I do. If I followed a

particular man or style, then that's what I would be doing. But I practice Dr.

Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems.

>

> I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something right. I

went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am relatively

educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp. those that

haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much deeper level

that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it. And most of all, I

have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I have a booming

practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his own. That applies

to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters that were not because

they did not make the art a part of themselves.

>

>

>

> Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

>

>

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> johnkokko

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> Yes... we all practice medicine,

> but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

>

> Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

> We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we

> learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia

> of changes.

> That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest

> and comprehensive name for what we do.

>

> K

>

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

>

> >

> > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is

> > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our

> > TCM using specific methodology. But as f

>

> r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better

> > very quickly. Oh semantics...

> >

> >

> >

> > Don

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > johnkokko

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> > " Global " ? GCM?

> >

> > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people

> > who

> > developed the classics which are the foundation of

> > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

> > we've got.

> >

> > K

> >

> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > Revolution

> > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > John,

> > >

> > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is

> > to

> > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in

> > the

> > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > > according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what

> > we

> > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> > medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Hi Donald:

 

Thanks for sharing what you are doing, its very kind of you. On the classics

side of it, its great they have four, 1.5 unit courses, nei jing, nan ching,

shan han and wen bing, I would call them a survey of these particular classics,

a comprehensive study of the Su Wen would include the entire 6-units. In my view

the DAOM is not really about the classics, from the curriculum its not about

applying classical acupuncture to practice, please let me know if I am wrong.

 

thanks,

david

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Great thread.

 

I practice Acupuncture and basic Herbal Medicine - Chinese materia medica.

Simple as that.

I have a Bachelor of Health Science- Acupuncture.

 

It's good enough for me, and it's good enough for my patients.

 

My own personaility and interests, shape and inform my work.

When I am communicating HOW I practice these particular modalites of 'natural

medicne' I choose my words according to whomever it is asked the question.

 

So HOW I describe my work, is phrased according to whether the listener or

reader is a peer, a medical doctor, an allied health practitioner, a lay person,

my best friend, or my pet cat.

 

The work is the work, regardless of what I call it.

 

In seeking to [re]name TCM for our time, are we in fact, making it too

complicated, and too much about 'us' and our individual practice interests, and

personal philosophies?

 

In 10 or 20 years, HOW I practice, and what has informed my work by then - may

be very different from today. Is the newly defined 'name' I give my work today,

still going to fit the thing which evolves tomorrow?

 

So it may be, for many of us.

 

But in essence we will still 'only' be sticking needles into people, and

prescribing funny-tasting stuff from nature, using a particular medical model as

the foundation.

 

Sometimes, it's ok to call an apple an apple, without needing to elaborate on

its sub-species, colour, growth habits, country of origin etc

 

Y'know? Most days the consumer just wants to know its an apple.

 

If what I'm giving them is a truly amazing tarte tatin, well and good.

But I could just call it apple tart, coz everyone knows what that is.

 

Margi Macdonald

http://margihealing.wordpress.com/ideas/

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Don,

Thanks for sharing your success story...

How much of your copyrighted methodology is derived from the Chinese

classics?

and how much is derived from innovation, integration and modern

understandings of bio-medicine?

 

Thanks,

K

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

 

>

> I answered the finance question just minutes ago so you can see my response

> to that if it shows up on the group. As far as what exactly I studied, I

> really get tired of answering that question. All one has to do is log on to

> PCOMs doctorate program and pull up their syllabus. It's as easy as that.

> Needless to say, I was quite pleased with the program and the outcomes. I

> don't regret the money spent. However, when I went through the program I

> was in the first graduating class. We started with 28 people and I

> graduated with 7 people. Some graduated in later cohorts and some ABDd.

> When I went, it was full time for 3 years and it was every weekend. I am

> retired from the military with 22 years and I can tell you that our doctoral

> class bonded closer than any wartime military unit I was ever attached to.

> I graduated with Robin Tiberi, Greg Sperber, Uchena (She'll forgive me but

> I still can't pronounce her last name) to name just a few. And if any one

> of them called me tomorrow needing something, I'd drop whatever I was doing

> and go help them. The DAOM program was an experience I would not trade for

> any amount of money. It was worth it to me. djs

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> singlewhip2001

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:54:12 +0000

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> HI Donald:

>

> Since you mentioned your income i had a few questions if you do not mind.

> Mid 6-figures, $400,000-600,000 per year? How is this generated? Treating

> patients and charging $60-120 per tx or some other structure? Managing

> others, commissions on others, charging rates under MD?

>

> Also can you share what exactly you studied of the classics at DAOM, how

> many hours of classes and what exactly was covered.

>

> thanks so much,

> david

>

> Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow

> <don83407 wrote:

> >

> >

> > Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice

> integral medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and

> that is what my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any

> " man " such a Lonny, Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the

> answers to our wonderful medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I

> do. If I followed a particular man or style, then that's what I would be

> doing. But I practice Dr. Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems.

> >

> > I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something

> right. I went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am

> relatively educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp.

> those that haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much

> deeper level that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it.

> And most of all, I have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I

> have a booming practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his

> own. That applies to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters

> that were not because they did not make the art a part of themselves.

> >

> >

> >

> > Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> >

> >

> > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > johnkokko

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes... we all practice medicine,

> > but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

> >

> > Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

> > We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what

> we

> > learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2

> millennia

> > of changes.

> > That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most

> honest

> > and comprehensive name for what we do.

> >

> > K

> >

> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined

> is

> > > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> > > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with

> our

> > > TCM using specific methodology. But as f

> >

> > r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get

> better

> > > very quickly. Oh semantics...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > johnkokko

> > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> > > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> > > " Global " ? GCM?

> > >

> > > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> > > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of

> people

> > > who

> > > developed the classics which are the foundation of

> > > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> > > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> > > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> > > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best

> that

> > > we've got.

> > >

> > > K

> > >

> > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chinese Medicine

> > > > Revolution

> > > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > John,

> > > >

> > > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge

> is

> > > to

> > > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its

> past.

> > > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made

> in

> > > the

> > > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > > > according to many different value systems across cultures at

> different

> > > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and

> what

> > > we

> > > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> > > medicine.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Laura,

I think we are already confused on this issue. TCM, with a capital " T " is a

brand that started post 1949 and has a heavy reliance upon modern systems and

science, which is why you read so much about western illnesses in the published

literature. On the other hand, if we were to use the lower case " t " in

traditional then I think many would agree with this form of

that has influenced all the other forms of Asian medicine. The problem here is

that the Japanese, Koreans and even the Vietnamese are not likely to go along

with the communist politics that is deeply steeped with TCM, upper case " T " , nor

is it a truthful representation of our historical past. Who about AOM?

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

heylaurag

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:50:16 +0000

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional

" AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about

AND it has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes

to TCM. As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at

lunch and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to

make themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine

proudly exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting

a Traditional formula! " .

 

 

 

Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and it

makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact that

a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing

ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What

kind of business sense is that?!

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , acuman1 wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM,

 

> richard writes:

 

>

 

>

 

> >

 

> > I wonder what others think.

 

> >

 

> > Richard James

 

> >

 

>

 

> The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a

 

> medical thought process that is

 

> based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the

 

> political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms of

using sense

 

> and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes while

 

> recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature.

 

>

 

> The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing

 

> and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to

 

> observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and

understood

 

> by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within

 

> Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing

 

> are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in

 

> their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to

 

> change results.

 

>

 

> Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the

 

> different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each

 

> other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it is

 

> they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn

 

> different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them, some

 

> integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is

 

> anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new

view

 

> on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his

 

> observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them, many

have

 

> gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools

 

> used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang, and

 

> the interconnectedness of the body via meridians.

 

>

 

> But, that is just me.

 

>

 

> David Molony

 

>

 

>

 

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

 Hi Margi!

 Sorry, this is a rough post, I'm all over the place.

 

 I am with a foot on both sides. I agree that excessive complication is

excessively complicated.

 

 I also understand that names are very very powerful.

 

 My major concern is the co-optation of CM by biomedical interests. Without a

tightly defined profession (defined *however* we want to) it will just take

the contact between the two medical systems to erode in favour of the profession

with cultural dominance. With a clearly defined boundary, co-optation becomes

much more difficult.

 

 The dangeorus idea that comes out of not naming something is " well, it's really

the same thing, in the end, isn't it? " No, it isn't the same thing though there

may be similarities. It is in the honest opposition that occurs between

people or professions that allows personal and professional boundaries to be

kept healthy. Without the definition of how to *distinguish* and, yes, oppose,

no one, not us as individuals or a profession, not our patients, will be able to

see what to " fight " , or when to fight it. It will be a rout.

 

 I am consistently astounded at the misperceptions about our medicine. If we all

read more of the classics (the translations in English that are easily available

are sufficient for now) we would have enough for a basic understanding. And one

of the basic understandings is that CM, being holistic and peaceful and

whatever, is *not* about being a pushover. Knowing something of what happened in

China in the last 200 years, I cannot but feel a vague shock at how close we

came to losing this thing, , and further, how heavily it has

been distorted by the political game of " scientification " and " standardisation "

that it was forced into in order to form the new entity, " TCM " .

 

 Certainly all of you are familiar with how definitive and passionate the

physicians of old were?!? Read the following passage *available online* here:

 

http://www.classicalchinesemedicine.org/translations/alldisease.htm

 

 That is a tight, fightin' words, definition.

 

 We need to know what we do, how we do it and why we do it, we have to give it

an accurate representative name, or we will blur into the new-age natural

healthcare field as just one more option, with conventional medicine at the top

as usual.

 

 This misperception we have is similar to a misperception about Tai Chi. Just

because it is soft doesn't mean we move back, and back, and back when an

opponent moves into our space!!! The cardinal rule in Tai Chi is //stand your

ground, don't move back,// allow the opponent to rotate themselves headfirst

into the sharp corner of whatever furniture is around!

 

 I am feeling more and more strongly that we suffer from the same almost-broken

spirit that we see in China so evidently.

 

 I have no problem with " " as a term for our profession, just to

be clear.

 

 I just believe that this discussion is important. How does a patient know that

what I do is different from an MD with a needle if they are both called

" acupuncture " ? I am sure I am not the only one, having described the differences

between " barely acupuncture " and " real acupuncture " , who has witnessed

the patient's eyes light up, followed by a comment like " oh! that makes so much

sense, and *that's* why ... " . Suddenly, there is a distinction, and because of

that distinction, a *discrimination* is made, the patient suddenly has context

and a way to parse their experience. They become empowered. That's our job, by

the way.

 

 Language depends on distinction and discrimination. We can use those things

well, or let others use them poorly.

 

 I regularly call western medicine by its accurate names in my mind, a personal

mantra, especially if I find that I am losing myself in it:

Reductionistic medicine.

Short-term care.

Standardised medicine.

Emergency Medicine.

 

*Not*

Palliative medicine.

Integrated medicine.

Long-term care.

Whole medicine.

 

Absolutely *not*

Healthcare.

And so on.

 

 If we do not call things as they are, we lose our ability to discriminate.

 

 Discriminate is not a bad word. All 81 chapters of the Tao Teh Ching are about

how to discriminate, so that we can eventually tap into wholeness again.

 

 Thanks to anyone who made it down here,

 

 Hugo

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I made it to the end Hugo, and I thought it was well worth it. Very well

written, passionate, and convincing. Thanks for sharing.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor

wrote:

>

>  Hi Margi!

>  Sorry, this is a rough post, I'm all over the place.

>

>  I am with a foot on both sides. I agree that excessive complication is

excessively complicated.

>

>  I also understand that names are very very powerful.

>

>  My major concern is the co-optation of CM by biomedical interests. Without a

tightly defined profession (defined *however* we want to) it will just take

the contact between the two medical systems to erode in favour of the profession

with cultural dominance. With a clearly defined boundary, co-optation becomes

much more difficult.

>

>  The dangeorus idea that comes out of not naming something is " well, it's

really the same thing, in the end, isn't it? " No, it isn't the same thing though

there may be similarities. It is in the honest opposition that occurs between

people or professions that allows personal and professional boundaries to be

kept healthy. Without the definition of how to *distinguish* and, yes, oppose,

no one, not us as individuals or a profession, not our patients, will be able to

see what to " fight " , or when to fight it. It will be a rout.

>

>  I am consistently astounded at the misperceptions about our medicine. If we

all read more of the classics (the translations in English that are easily

available are sufficient for now) we would have enough for a basic

understanding. And one of the basic understandings is that CM, being holistic

and peaceful and whatever, is *not* about being a pushover. Knowing something of

what happened in China in the last 200 years, I cannot but feel a vague shock at

how close we came to losing this thing, , and further, how

heavily it has been distorted by the political game of " scientification " and

" standardisation " that it was forced into in order to form the new entity,

" TCM " .

>  

>  Certainly all of you are familiar with how definitive and passionate the

physicians of old were?!? Read the following passage *available online* here:

>

> http://www.classicalchinesemedicine.org/translations/alldisease.htm

>

>  That is a tight, fightin' words, definition.

>

>  We need to know what we do, how we do it and why we do it, we have to give it

an accurate representative name, or we will blur into the new-age natural

healthcare field as just one more option, with conventional medicine at the top

as usual.

>

>  This misperception we have is similar to a misperception about Tai Chi. Just

because it is soft doesn't mean we move back, and back, and back when an

opponent moves into our space!!! The cardinal rule in Tai Chi is //stand your

ground, don't move back,// allow the opponent to rotate themselves headfirst

into the sharp corner of whatever furniture is around!

>

>  I am feeling more and more strongly that we suffer from the same

almost-broken spirit that we see in China so evidently.

>

>  I have no problem with " " as a term for our profession, just

to be clear.

>

>  I just believe that this discussion is important. How does a patient know

that what I do is different from an MD with a needle if they are both called

" acupuncture " ? I am sure I am not the only one, having described the differences

between " barely acupuncture " and " real acupuncture " , who has witnessed

the patient's eyes light up, followed by a comment like " oh! that makes so much

sense, and *that's* why ... " . Suddenly, there is a distinction, and because of

that distinction, a *discrimination* is made, the patient suddenly has context

and a way to parse their experience. They become empowered. That's our job, by

the way.

>

>  Language depends on distinction and discrimination. We can use those things

well, or let others use them poorly.

>

>  I regularly call western medicine by its accurate names in my mind, a

personal mantra, especially if I find that I am losing myself in it:

> Reductionistic medicine.

> Short-term care.

> Standardised medicine.

> Emergency Medicine.

>

> *Not*

> Palliative medicine.

> Integrated medicine.

> Long-term care.

> Whole medicine.

>

> Absolutely *not*

> Healthcare.

> And so on.

>

>  If we do not call things as they are, we lose our ability to discriminate.

>

>  Discriminate is not a bad word. All 81 chapters of the Tao Teh Ching are

about how to discriminate, so that we can eventually tap into wholeness again.

>

>  Thanks to anyone who made it down here,

>

>  Hugo

> ________________________________

> Hugo Ramiro

> http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

> http://www.middlemedicine.org

>

>

>

>

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Wow. I had no idea. This leaves me with a sinking feeling that we've already

lost the battle. If the term that I have picked up on being so well-integrated

into the underground psyche of many laypeople is actually a term that robs us of

our roots, that is concerning indeed.

 

But...maybe we should just fight back by owning the term. I mean, just because

the term TCM was born out of communist China and the limitations on our medicine

that was forced on us during that time doesn't mean we can't say embrace it.

Many good things can actually come out of a bad time. Who hears TCM and thinks,

" Oh, that's not the same as traditional Chinese medicine because it was created

during the communist take-over of the medicine and therefore it has less of the

ancient aspect of the medicine and more of the modern/scientific aspect " ? Is

this an OFFICIAL definition, or just a connotation? If its not official, then I

would say that we should just consider what happened to TCM in China during that

time to simply be a chapter in our history that includes both coming up with

term TCM as well as a blunting of the medicine. And now we accept the name but

we are moving beyond the blunting.

 

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

>

> Laura,

> I think we are already confused on this issue. TCM, with a capital " T " is a

brand that started post 1949 and has a heavy reliance upon modern systems and

science, which is why you read so much about western illnesses in the published

literature. On the other hand, if we were to use the lower case " t " in

traditional then I think many would agree with this form of

that has influenced all the other forms of Asian medicine. The problem here is

that the Japanese, Koreans and even the Vietnamese are not likely to go along

with the communist politics that is deeply steeped with TCM, upper case " T " , nor

is it a truthful representation of our historical past. Who about AOM?

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> Chinese Medicine

> heylaurag

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:50:16 +0000

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional

" AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about

AND it has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes

to TCM. As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at

lunch and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to

make themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine

proudly exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting

a Traditional formula! " .

>

>

>

> Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and

it makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact

that a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing

ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What

kind of business sense is that?!

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine , acuman1@ wrote:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM,

>

> > richard@ writes:

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > >

>

> > > I wonder what others think.

>

> > >

>

> > > Richard James

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a

>

> > medical thought process that is

>

> > based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the

>

> > political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms

of using sense

>

> > and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes

while

>

> > recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature.

>

> >

>

> > The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing

>

> > and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to

>

> > observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and

understood

>

> > by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within

>

> > Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing

>

> > are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in

>

> > their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to

>

> > change results.

>

> >

>

> > Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the

>

> > different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each

>

> > other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it

is

>

> > they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn

>

> > different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them,

some

>

> > integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is

>

> > anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new

view

>

> > on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his

>

> > observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them,

many have

>

> > gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools

>

> > used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang,

and

>

> > the interconnectedness of the body via meridians.

>

> >

>

> > But, that is just me.

>

> >

>

> > David Molony

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

" Conventional medicine " is a favorite of mine, since the focus is on " standard

of care " , which is changeable by committees (convention), is not consistent,

and not much about the patient.

David Molony

 

On Dec 14, 2009, at 5:01:23 PM, heylaurag <heylaurag wrote:

 

 I regularly call western medicine by its accurate names in my mind, a personal

mantra, especially if I find that I am losing myself in it:

> Reductionistic medicine.

> Short-term care.

> Standardised medicine.

> Emergency Medicine.

> 

> *Not*

> Palliative medicine.

> Integrated medicine.

> Long-term care.

> Whole medicine.

> 

> Absolutely *not*

> Healthcare.

> And so on.

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

We have to remember that a reasonable large segment of our practitioner

population does not like the TCM brand. for whatever reasons. This is one of the

reason why I like the inclusiveness of Oriental Medicine, which is a known brand

that makes sense even more than Chinese medicine, which has the same

connotations as TCM in many ways.

David Molony

 

On Dec 14, 2009, at 5:09:16 PM, heylaurag <heylaurag wrote:

 

heylaurag <heylaurag

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

December 14, 2009 5:09:16 PM EST

Chinese Medicine

Wow. I had no idea. This leaves me with a sinking feeling that we've already

lost the battle. If the term that I have picked up on being so well-integrated

into the underground psyche of many laypeople is actually a term that robs us of

our roots, that is concerning indeed. 

 

But...maybe we should just fight back by owning the term. I mean, just because

the term TCM was born out of communist China and the limitations on our medicine

that was forced on us during that time doesn't mean we can't say embrace it.

Many good things can actually come out of a bad time. Who hears TCM and thinks,

" Oh, that's not the same as traditional Chinese medicine because it was created

during the communist take-over of the medicine and therefore it has less of the

ancient aspect of the medicine and more of the modern/scientific aspect " ? Is

this an OFFICIAL definition, or just a connotation? If its not official, then I

would say that we should just consider what happened to TCM in China during that

time to simply be a chapter in our history that includes both coming up with

term TCM as well as a blunting of the medicine. And now we accept the name but

we are moving beyond the blunting. 

 

--- In Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> 

> Laura,

> I think we are already confused on this issue. TCM, with a capital " T " is a

brand that started post 1949 and has a heavy reliance upon modern systems and

science, which is why you read so much about western illnesses in the published

literature. On the other hand, if we were to use the lower case " t " in

traditional then I think many would agree with this form of

that has influenced all the other forms of Asian medicine. The problem here is

that the Japanese, Koreans and even the Vietnamese are not likely to go along

with the communist politics that is deeply steeped with TCM, upper case " T " , nor

is it a truthful representation of our historical past. Who about AOM?

> 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> 

> To: Chinese Medicine

> heylaurag

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:50:16 +0000

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional

" AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about

AND it has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes

to TCM. As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at

lunch and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to

make themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine

proudly exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting a

Traditional formula! " . 

> 

> 

> 

> Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and

it makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact

that a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing

ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What

kind of business sense is that?! 

> 

> 

> 

> --- In Chinese Medicine , acuman1@ wrote:

> 

> >

> 

> > 

> 

> > In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM, 

> 

> > richard@ writes:

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > I wonder what others think.

> 

> > > 

> 

> > > Richard James

> 

> > > 

> 

> > 

> 

> > The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a 

> 

> > medical thought process that is 

> 

> > based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the 

> 

> > political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms

of using sense 

> 

> > and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes

while 

> 

> > recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature.

> 

> > 

> 

> > The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing 

> 

> > and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to 

> 

> > observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and

understood 

> 

> > by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within 

> 

> > Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing 

> 

> > are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in 

> 

> > their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using

to 

> 

> > change results. 

> 

> > 

> 

> > Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the 

> 

> > different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each 

> 

> > other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it

is 

> 

> > they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn 

> 

> > different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them,

some 

> 

> > integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is 

> 

> > anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new

view 

> 

> > on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his 

> 

> > observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them,

many have 

> 

> > gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools 

> 

> > used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang,

and 

> 

> > the interconnectedness of the body via meridians.

> 

> > 

> 

> > But, that is just me.

> 

> > 

> 

> > David Molony

> 

> > 

> 

> > 

> 

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

To me, all of my methodology is based on TCM/AOM theory. Much of the equipment

I use has been around since the 1970's and is commonly used in all PT clinics.

But why are my results different than the MD or physical therapist that uses

this same equipment? It is because the theory on which I base their use is

deeply entrenched in TCM.

 

 

 

That does not mean I cannot explain how our medicine works in modern scientific

language. TCM and modern science are the same, it is the approach that is

different. For instance, I know what Qi is and we can measure it. You may not

agree with my definition, but my work is based on the correctness of my

definition. What I mean is this:

 

 

 

If ten AOM practioners and 10 allopaths and myself are allowed treat patients

with identical pathology. I should be able to take your or the allopaths

failures and correct their pathology, and their problem should be gone. If I

can do that and you or the allopaths cannot, my assumptions/definitions must be

correct and the others wrong. And I have firm ideas on just what Qi exactly is

and how to manipulate it; disperse it, move it, or tonify it. In other words, I

take a living but damaged or pathological cell and make it healthy and I do it

very quickly. If I can change the cell and make it " normal " , then pain or

pathology in the tissue (made up or cells) goes away. Remember, normal cells

produce no pain. That is the level I work on and I have found a way to

consistantly and quickly make malfunctioning cells functional. That is what AOM

does slowly. I simply enhance the treatments with modern 20th and 21st century

technology applied through my methodologies. And yes, it's all innovation but

based on solid grounding.

 

 

 

I've got to go. Hope this helps.

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

johnkokko

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:37:17 -0800

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

Don,

Thanks for sharing your success story...

How much of your copyrighted methodology is derived from the Chinese

classics?

and how much is derived from innovation, integration and modern

understandings of bio-medicine?

 

Thanks,

K

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

 

>

> I answered the finance question just minutes ago so you can see my response

> to that if it shows up on the group. As far as what exactly I studied, I

> really get tired of answering that question. All one has to do is log on to

> PCOMs doctorate program and pull up their syllabus. It's as easy as that.

> Needless to say, I was quite pleased with the program and the outcomes. I

> don't regret the money spent. However, when I went through the program I

> was in the first graduating class. We started with 28 people and I

> graduated with 7 people. Some graduated in later cohorts and some ABDd.

> When I went, it was full time for 3 years and it was every weekend. I am

> retired from the military with 22 years and I can tell you that our doctoral

> class bonded closer than any wartime military unit I was ever attached to.

> I graduated with Robin Tiberi, Greg Sperber, Uchena (She'll forgive me but

> I still can't pronounce her last name) to name just a few. And if any one

> of them called me tomorrow needing something, I'd drop whatever I was doing

> and go help them. The DAOM program was an experience I would not trade for

> any amount of money. It was worth it to me. djs

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> singlewhip2001

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:54:12 +0000

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> HI Donald:

>

> Since you mentioned your income i had a few questions if you do not mind.

> Mid 6-figures, $400,000-600,000 per year? How is this generated? Treating

> patients and charging $60-120 per tx or some other structure? Managing

> others, commissions on others, charging rates under MD?

>

> Also can you share what exactly you studied of the classics at DAOM, how

> many hours of classes and what exactly was covered.

>

> thanks so much,

> david

>

> Chinese Medicine , Donald Snow

> <don83407 wrote:

> >

> >

> > Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice

> integral medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and

> that is what my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any

> " man " such a Lonny, Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the

> answers to our wonderful medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I

> do. If I followed a particular man or style, then that's what I would be

> doing. But I practice Dr. Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems.

> >

> > I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something

> right. I went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am

> relatively educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp.

> those that haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much

> deeper level that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it.

> And most of all, I have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I

> have a booming practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his

> own. That applies to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters

> that were not because they did not make the art a part of themselves.

> >

> >

> >

> > Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

> >

> >

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> >

> >

> > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > johnkokko

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Yes... we all practice medicine,

> > but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

> >

> > Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

> > We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what

> we

> > learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2

> millennia

> > of changes.

> > That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most

> honest

> > and comprehensive name for what we do.

> >

> > K

> >

> > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined

> is

> > > the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> > > medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with

> our

> > > TCM using specific methodology. But as f

> >

> > r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get

> better

> > > very quickly. Oh semantics...

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Don

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Chinese Medicine

> > > johnkokko

> > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> > > Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> > > " Global " ? GCM?

> > >

> > > I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> > > because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of

> people

> > > who

> > > developed the classics which are the foundation of

> > > Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> > > systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> > > sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> > > geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best

> that

> > > we've got.

> > >

> > > K

> > >

> > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Chinese Medicine

> > > > Revolution

> > > > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > > > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > John,

> > > >

> > > > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge

> is

> > > to

> > > > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its

> past.

> > > > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made

> in

> > > the

> > > > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > > > according to many different value systems across cultures at

> different

> > > > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and

> what

> > > we

> > > > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> > > medicine.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

The term " Traditional " is only used in the West, designed on in

mainland China as a marketing approach. Chinese medicine is good enough, and is

an accurate description from the existing practices developed in China and

elsewhere in Asian countries.

 

Z " ev Rosenberg

On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:09 PM, heylaurag wrote:

 

> Wow. I had no idea. This leaves me with a sinking feeling that we've already

lost the battle. If the term that I have picked up on being so well-integrated

into the underground psyche of many laypeople is actually a term that robs us of

our roots, that is concerning indeed.

>

> But...maybe we should just fight back by owning the term. I mean, just because

the term TCM was born out of communist China and the limitations on our medicine

that was forced on us during that time doesn't mean we can't say embrace it.

Many good things can actually come out of a bad time. Who hears TCM and thinks,

" Oh, that's not the same as traditional Chinese medicine because it was created

during the communist take-over of the medicine and therefore it has less of the

ancient aspect of the medicine and more of the modern/scientific aspect " ? Is

this an OFFICIAL definition, or just a connotation? If its not official, then I

would say that we should just consider what happened to TCM in China during that

time to simply be a chapter in our history that includes both coming up with

term TCM as well as a blunting of the medicine. And now we accept the name but

we are moving beyond the blunting.

>

> --

>

>

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

But if the general public (some of them anyway) knows the term TCM and holds in

positive regard--even seeing it as signifying something almost sacred--why

should we give that up?

 

 

Chinese Medicine ,

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> The term " Traditional " is only used in the West, designed on

in mainland China as a marketing approach. Chinese medicine is good enough, and

is an accurate description from the existing practices developed in China and

elsewhere in Asian countries.

>

> Z " ev Rosenberg

> On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:09 PM, heylaurag wrote:

>

> > Wow. I had no idea. This leaves me with a sinking feeling that we've already

lost the battle. If the term that I have picked up on being so well-integrated

into the underground psyche of many laypeople is actually a term that robs us of

our roots, that is concerning indeed.

> >

> > But...maybe we should just fight back by owning the term. I mean, just

because the term TCM was born out of communist China and the limitations on our

medicine that was forced on us during that time doesn't mean we can't say

embrace it. Many good things can actually come out of a bad time. Who hears TCM

and thinks, " Oh, that's not the same as traditional Chinese medicine because it

was created during the communist take-over of the medicine and therefore it has

less of the ancient aspect of the medicine and more of the modern/scientific

aspect " ? Is this an OFFICIAL definition, or just a connotation? If its not

official, then I would say that we should just consider what happened to TCM in

China during that time to simply be a chapter in our history that includes both

coming up with term TCM as well as a blunting of the medicine. And now we accept

the name but we are moving beyond the blunting.

> >

> > --

> >

> >

>

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

No need to give it up, but I think Chinese medicine is just a broader term, and

less apt to perpetuate the divisiveness that in the past existed between the

'five element' folks and the 'eight principle' folks.

 

Z'ev

On Dec 14, 2009, at 5:09 PM, heylaurag wrote:

 

> But if the general public (some of them anyway) knows the term TCM and holds

in positive regard--even seeing it as signifying something almost sacred--why

should we give that up?

>

> Chinese Medicine ,

<zrosenbe wrote:

> >

> > The term " Traditional " is only used in the West, designed

on in mainland China as a marketing approach. Chinese medicine is good enough,

and is an accurate description from the existing practices developed in China

and elsewhere in Asian countries.

> >

> > Z " ev Rosenberg

> > On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:09 PM, heylaurag wrote:

> >

> > > Wow. I had no idea. This leaves me with a sinking feeling that we've

already lost the battle. If the term that I have picked up on being so

well-integrated into the underground psyche of many laypeople is actually a term

that robs us of our roots, that is concerning indeed.

> > >

> > > But...maybe we should just fight back by owning the term. I mean, just

because the term TCM was born out of communist China and the limitations on our

medicine that was forced on us during that time doesn't mean we can't say

embrace it. Many good things can actually come out of a bad time. Who hears TCM

and thinks, " Oh, that's not the same as traditional Chinese medicine because it

was created during the communist take-over of the medicine and therefore it has

less of the ancient aspect of the medicine and more of the modern/scientific

aspect " ? Is this an OFFICIAL definition, or just a connotation? If its not

official, then I would say that we should just consider what happened to TCM in

China during that time to simply be a chapter in our history that includes both

coming up with term TCM as well as a blunting of the medicine. And now we accept

the name but we are moving beyond the blunting.

> > >

> > > --

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> > San Diego, Ca. 92122

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

This whole confusion seems to be because we aren't living up to the 'T' of TCM.

If we are neglecting the 'traditional' aspect, and move more and more towards

CM, or even MCM- 'modern' or 'medical' CM--- then as a response there is CCM

emerging- 'classical' or 'canonical' CM.... It is all because we misrepresent

and stray from the T in CM.

 

Isn't the T in TCM translated from 經？ 'TCM' doesn't need to be a brand name

or style.

However, to me, without roots in the Nei Jing or the living stream of

practitioners and lineages, can anything be called Chinese/East Asian/ Oriental

medicine?

 

eric

 

 

On Dec 14, 2009, at 5:15 PM, wrote:

 

> No need to give it up, but I think Chinese medicine is just a broader term,

and less apt to perpetuate the divisiveness that in the past existed between the

'five element' folks and the 'eight principle' folks.

>

> Z'ev

> On Dec 14, 2009, at 5:09 PM, heylaurag wrote:

>

>> But if the general public (some of them anyway) knows the term TCM and holds

in positive regard--even seeing it as signifying something almost sacred--why

should we give that up?

>>

>> Chinese Medicine ,

<zrosenbe wrote:

>>>

>>> The term " Traditional " is only used in the West, designed

on in mainland China as a marketing approach. Chinese medicine is good enough,

and is an accurate description from the existing practices developed in China

and elsewhere in Asian countries.

>>>

>>> Z " ev Rosenberg

>>> On Dec 14, 2009, at 2:09 PM, heylaurag wrote:

>>>

>>>> Wow. I had no idea. This leaves me with a sinking feeling that we've

already lost the battle. If the term that I have picked up on being so

well-integrated into the underground psyche of many laypeople is actually a term

that robs us of our roots, that is concerning indeed.

>>>>

>>>> But...maybe we should just fight back by owning the term. I mean, just

because the term TCM was born out of communist China and the limitations on our

medicine that was forced on us during that time doesn't mean we can't say

embrace it. Many good things can actually come out of a bad time. Who hears TCM

and thinks, " Oh, that's not the same as traditional Chinese medicine because it

was created during the communist take-over of the medicine and therefore it has

less of the ancient aspect of the medicine and more of the modern/scientific

aspect " ? Is this an OFFICIAL definition, or just a connotation? If its not

official, then I would say that we should just consider what happened to TCM in

China during that time to simply be a chapter in our history that includes both

coming up with term TCM as well as a blunting of the medicine. And now we accept

the name but we are moving beyond the blunting.

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

>>> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

>>> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Hi,

Dr.Snow gave such a wonderful answer about studying in his DAOM program.

I want to joint him and say that DAOM program gave me very good experience with

teachers and students too. I like about 90% of courses that were given to us.

We had great American teachers and Chinese. Program directors are open to our

suggestions to make it better for the next class.

I am finishing my DAOM from ACTCM (San Francisco)this March.

 

This letter I am writing from Shanghai where I am for internship. So far, I

LOVE it!!!

It is a dream to work like them (!) in hospitals. The integration with Western

med. is unbelievable.

 

To develop another degree (FPD) will get us in more confusion.

We have to work on what we already have.

 

With respect to everybody,

Tatiana, Shanghai (!!!!!)

>

> I answered the finance question just minutes ago so you can see my response to

that if it shows up on the group. As far as what exactly I studied, I really

get tired of answering that question. All one

has to do is log on to PCOMs doctorate program and pull up their syllabus. It's

as easy as that. Needless to say, I was quite pleased with the program and the

outcomes. I don't regret the money spent. However, when I went through the

program I was in the first

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Tatiana,

I think that you're confused... the FPD is not another degree...

it's going straight from the beginning of the Masters program straight to

the Doctorate

program which you've just been raving about.

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:02 PM, tgaid1 <tvgaid wrote:

 

>

>

> Hi,

> Dr.Snow gave such a wonderful answer about studying in his DAOM program.

> I want to joint him and say that DAOM program gave me very good experience

> with teachers and students too. I like about 90% of courses that were given

> to us. We had great American teachers and Chinese. Program directors are

> open to our suggestions to make it better for the next class.

> I am finishing my DAOM from ACTCM (San Francisco)this March.

>

> This letter I am writing from Shanghai where I am for internship. So far, I

> LOVE it!!!

> It is a dream to work like them (!) in hospitals. The integration with

> Western med. is unbelievable.

>

> To develop another degree (FPD) will get us in more confusion.

> We have to work on what we already have.

>

> With respect to everybody,

> Tatiana, Shanghai (!!!!!)

>

> >

> > I answered the finance question just minutes ago so you can see my

> response to that if it shows up on the group. As far as what exactly I

> studied, I really get tired of answering that question. All one

> has to do is log on to PCOMs doctorate program and pull up their syllabus.

> It's as easy as that. Needless to say, I was quite pleased with the program

> and the outcomes. I don't regret the money spent. However, when I went

> through the program I was in the first

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

 

""

 

 

www.tcmreview.com

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

Absolutely, I agree with you. The living stream of Chinese medicine is rooted

in the classical literature. But it seems in this discussion overall we are

seeking for a brand name for what we do, and the term " TCM " didn't appear until

the modern era. .

 

 

On Dec 14, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Eric Rosenbush wrote:

 

> This whole confusion seems to be because we aren't living up to the 'T' of

TCM. If we are neglecting the 'traditional' aspect, and move more and more

towards CM, or even MCM- 'modern' or 'medical' CM--- then as a response there is

CCM emerging- 'classical' or 'canonical' CM.... It is all because we

misrepresent and stray from the T in CM.

>

> Isn't the T in TCM translated from 經？ 'TCM' doesn't need to be a brand

name or style.

> However, to me, without roots in the Nei Jing or the living stream of

practitioners and lineages, can anything be called Chinese/East Asian/ Oriental

medicine?

>

> eric

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guest   

Guest guest
Posted

I think that TCM is like looking at a pointalist painting from six inches

off of the canvas,

instead of taking a few steps back to see the big picture. We have all of

the dots to memorize, repeat and all of the steps to memorize and repeat,

without the connections and the meaning between thousands of years of

conscious and subconscious development.

That's why it's essential to make the classics the axis of all of our work,

where the spokes coming off of them are up to interpretation, innovation and

practice.

 

K

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:38 PM, <zrosenbe wrote:

 

>

>

> Absolutely, I agree with you. The living stream of Chinese medicine is

> rooted in the classical literature. But it seems in this discussion overall

> we are seeking for a brand name for what we do, and the term " TCM " didn't

> appear until the modern era. .

>

>

>

> On Dec 14, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Eric Rosenbush wrote:

>

> > This whole confusion seems to be because we aren't living up to the 'T'

> of TCM. If we are neglecting the 'traditional' aspect, and move more and

> more towards CM, or even MCM- 'modern' or 'medical' CM--- then as a response

> there is CCM emerging- 'classical' or 'canonical' CM.... It is all because

> we misrepresent and stray from the T in CM.

> >

> > Isn't the T in TCM translated from 經？ 'TCM' doesn't need to be a brand

> name or style.

> > However, to me, without roots in the Nei Jing or the living stream of

> practitioners and lineages, can anything be called Chinese/East Asian/

> Oriental medicine?

> >

> > eric

>

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

>

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing

Support the Ashram

Join WhatsApp Group

IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...