ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

[Guest guest]

On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog:

 

 

considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's

Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not

entirely

surprised that an organizational response is lacking.

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

I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg

and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan

and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from

Mr. Bigg.

 

 

There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response.

 

 

Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status

investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded.

 

The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world

several times in the past so it has been done before.

 

Richard

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Don

 

Regardless whether YOU believe that FPD was a good thing (you are entitled

to your beliefs) and I to my beliefs (which is that FPD was not a good

thing at this time in this way).

 

One thing which definitely needs to come on top in the process is HONESTY

in these proceedings and not special interest groups agendas.

 

The organization stated that CONSENSUS was needed to move ahead.

CONSENSUS was NOT reached by a long shot.

Not even by the farthest stretch of one's imagination.

 

Therefore the process of moving ahead with the FPD........ FAILED.

 

Richard

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/16/2010 11:23:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

 

 

Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a

good thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are

no topics that do.

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a good

thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are no

topics that do.

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

Chinese Medicine

CC: habeas_1; ORIENTALMEDICIN; hkaltsas

acudoc11

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:11:39 -0400

ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog:

 

 

considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's

Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not

entirely

surprised that an organizational response is lacking.

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

I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg

and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan

and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from

Mr. Bigg.

 

There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response.

 

Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status

investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded.

 

The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world

several times in the past so it has been done before.

 

Richard

 

 

[Guest guest]

Michael

 

Thanks for allowing me my own opinion...as well.

Mine is just as VALID as yours!

 

Studies? That's what I am asking for from ACAOM.

Where are their studies?

 

Richard

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:31:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

Richard,

 

That is your opinion as well. How do you know or better where are your

studies? At some point, we need to allow our leadership to lead. I expect

that of them as well. We are not asking them to keep us where we have been

largely due to an uneducated profession. Over the years, we have expected a

lot from them and they continue to move us forward. Now you want to go

backwards, why?

 

I also think that the FPD is necessary for our future existence.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

M

 

I am as much a stakeholder as the next person.

 

Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all

dealings.

 

What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide.

 

R

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Richard,

 

That is your opinion as well. How do you know or better where are your studies?

At some point, we need to allow our leadership to lead. I expect that of them

as well. We are not asking them to keep us where we have been largely due to an

uneducated profession. Over the years, we have expected a lot from them and

they continue to move us forward. Now you want to go backwards, why?

 

I also think that the FPD is necessary for our future existence.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:31:05 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don

 

 

 

Regardless whether YOU believe that FPD was a good thing (you are entitled

 

to your beliefs) and I to my beliefs (which is that FPD was not a good

 

thing at this time in this way).

 

 

 

One thing which definitely needs to come on top in the process is HONESTY

 

in these proceedings and not special interest groups agendas.

 

 

 

The organization stated that CONSENSUS was needed to move ahead.

 

CONSENSUS was NOT reached by a long shot.

 

Not even by the farthest stretch of one's imagination.

 

 

 

Therefore the process of moving ahead with the FPD........ FAILED.

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/16/2010 11:23:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

don83407 writes:

 

 

 

Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a

 

good thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are

 

no topics that do.

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Many of the past professional decisions were met with resistance to change as

well. We can get through it and be better.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:23:23 -0500

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

> Many of us wrote them with our desire for a FPD. I think the FPD is a good

thing. We are not going to get total agreement on this topic, there are no

topics that do.

>

>

>

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

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> CC: habeas_1; ORIENTALMEDICIN; hkaltsas

> acudoc11

> Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:11:39 -0400

> ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

>

>

> On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog:

>

>

> considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's

> Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not

entirely

> surprised that an organizational response is lacking.

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

> I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg

> and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan

> and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from

> Mr. Bigg.

>

> There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response.

>

> Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status

> investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded.

>

> The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world

> several times in the past so it has been done before.

>

> Richard

>

>

[Guest guest]

M

 

And I think it odd that you would think they don't OWE EVERYONE a response!

 

By the way I am not alone.......or odd in asking/demanding --- actually it

is our right to DEMAND.

 

Out of the 3,000 responses to the FPD (from a sea of 30,000 stakeholders)

there were approximately 2,100 AGAINST the FPD.

 

So WHY do you believe that your VOTE counts more than the majority of the

3,000 which was against?

 

Not to forget that the REAL MAJORITY voiced NO opinion.

 

Go back and look up the word CONSENSUS and you shall have one answer.

 

R

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

R,

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

M

 

If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top

to consider EXPELLING such a student?

 

Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a

slap on the wrists.

It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it

in order.

 

Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and

devastating.

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

R,

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by USDE

is way over the top for something like this.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

CC: habeas_1; ORIENTALMEDICIN; hkaltsas

acudoc11

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:11:39 -0400

ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 8:13am April 15th, 2010 Jessica Feltz W... said on Blog:

 

 

 

 

 

considering that Dort Bigg resigned his 14-year-position as ACAOM's

 

Executive Director last month and no replacement has been hired, I am not

entirely

 

surprised that an organizational response is lacking.

 

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

 

I communicated a TEN DAY DEMAND (similar to the CAN complaint) to Mr Bigg

 

and ACAOM on March 12th, 2010 with a copy to the USDE Secretary Arne Duncan

 

and to date I have not heard from anyone at ACAOM and certainly not from

 

Mr. Bigg.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no excuse for their lack of response.

 

 

 

Apparently such an organization needs to have their accreditation status

 

investigated by USDE and if appropriate......it should be rescinded.

 

 

 

The USDE rescinded the accreditation status in the naturopathic world

 

several times in the past so it has been done before.

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

M

 

Obviously some simple math is being evade or made to not exist.......

30,000 stakeholders

minus 3,000 responses

equals 27,000 missing majority

 

3,000 response

2100 against (70% against)

 

Bottom Line......ZERO CONSENSUS.

 

Lets stop playing this broken record.

 

R

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:09:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

You are welcome. Of course you can contribute but in the end we must also

realize when things are changing.

 

There have already been a couple of studies and likely there will be in

the future, as nothing has yet been truly decided (this appears to be an

issue for some). In reverse, where are the studies that show overwhelming

rejection? I have not see any.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

M

 

And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources.

Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything

asked for.

Just like any not-for-profit organization.

Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN to

scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate.

That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization.

They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools

under same.

You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD.

Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders

which decide FPD.

So why do YOU state something oddly different?

You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a

school?

I don't profit from running or teaching at a school.

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to

use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are

looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an

agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to

see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and

less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our

profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the

FPD,

at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If

anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if

they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another

decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done

practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD,

and

as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them

or they will leav

e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this

decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in

the end, they will decide and we need to more forward.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

I am as much a stakeholder as the next person.

 

 

 

Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all

 

dealings.

 

 

 

What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

 

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28

326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

M

 

You can write till the cows fly over the moon and it will not change my

opinion.

What appears to have taken place needs investigation by USDE and THEY will

be the ones who will decide to suspend accreditation granting status or

not.

And this is a BIG DEAL especially if they have violated their own stated

procedures....just like schools get suspended by ACAOM. If a school has

trouble running properly according to the procedures their status is pulled and

the same should go for ACAOM.

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:01:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college.

BTW,That still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this time. I

I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a

larger concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the

top

 

to consider EXPELLING such a student?

 

 

 

Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a

 

slap on the wrists.

 

It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep

it

 

in order.

 

 

 

Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and

 

devastating.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension

by

 

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with

Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID283

26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

M

 

And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources.

Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything

asked for.

Just like any not-for-profit organization.

Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN to

scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate.

That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization.

They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools

under same.

You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD.

Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders

which decide FPD.

So why do YOU state something oddly different?

You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a

school?

I don't profit from running or teaching at a school.

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to

use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are

looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an

agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to

see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and

less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our

profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on the

FPD,

at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen. If

anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if

they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean another

decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done

practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the FPD,

and

as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them

or they will leav

e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this

decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in

the end, they will decide and we need to more forward.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

I am as much a stakeholder as the next person.

 

 

 

Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all

 

dealings.

 

 

 

What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

 

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28

326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

Furthermore it is not only ODD but highly SUSPECT that there are 3 Members

of ACAOM who run and/or own schools or heavily involved with AOM schools.

 

ACAOM is a quasi-governmental agency or at least an organization with a

governmental delegated important duty. As such like state Acupuncture Boards

it is highly unethical to have Director Members who OWN and RUN schools or

even teach Continuing Education courses.

This is yet another area of concern.

The proverbial.... fox guarding the chicken coop?

 

Also...no one answers the question that with 60 college credit prerequisite

entrance requirement and approximately 200 credits for the ACAOM

accredited AOM program (so called funky Masters) is actually equivalent to a

Bachelors, Masters AND more importantly a TRIPLE PhD. YES...that's right a

TRIPLE

PhD!

 

So the Masters is ALREADY a PhD by credits alone.

 

The AOM schools need to stop bilking prospective students interested in

the field with more costly and worthless dream degrees. THIS is what will

SCARE away prospective students.

 

Richard

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:48:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

kuangguiyu writes:

 

Mike -

 

I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to

a).

announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving

forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response

that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan.

Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing

body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is

hardly a witch hunt.

 

I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process,

but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way

to

move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the

FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am

aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for

consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more

interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And

if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating

this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our

current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather

than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the

profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be

interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those

who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing

anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly

does it advance the profession?

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

R,

 

Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college. BTW,That

still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this time. I

I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a larger

concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the top

 

to consider EXPELLING such a student?

 

 

 

Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a

 

slap on the wrists.

 

It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep it

 

in order.

 

 

 

Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and

 

devastating.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

 

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

R,

 

I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to use. I

see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are looking to hang

them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an agenda to discredit

you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to see more people willing

to get involved with making the process better and less about going backwards

(change is inevitable and look where our profession has come). We are seeing

many more people showing agreement on the FPD, at some point we must honestly

ask when we are going to make it happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move

very slowly, which means that even if they were willing to start this change

today, it would probably mean another decade or two before it really happened

(possibly after we are done practicing). The future of our profession is much

more interested in the FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be

looking to create it for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work

with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You

get an equal comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to

more forward.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

I am as much a stakeholder as the next person.

 

 

 

Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all

 

dealings.

 

 

 

What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

 

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

R,

 

You are welcome. Of course you can contribute but in the end we must also

realize when things are changing.

 

There have already been a couple of studies and likely there will be in the

future, as nothing has yet been truly decided (this appears to be an issue for

some). In reverse, where are the studies that show overwhelming rejection? I

have not see any.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:32:21 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael

 

 

 

Thanks for allowing me my own opinion...as well.

 

Mine is just as VALID as yours!

 

 

 

Studies? That's what I am asking for from ACAOM.

 

Where are their studies?

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:31:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

Richard,

 

 

 

That is your opinion as well. How do you know or better where are your

 

studies? At some point, we need to allow our leadership to lead. I expect

 

that of them as well. We are not asking them to keep us where we have been

 

largely due to an uneducated profession. Over the years, we have expected a

 

lot from them and they continue to move us forward. Now you want to go

 

backwards, why?

 

 

 

I also think that the FPD is necessary for our future existence.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mike -

 

I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to a).

announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving

forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response

that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan.

Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing

body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is

hardly a witch hunt.

 

I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process,

but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way to

move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the

FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am

aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for

consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more

interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And

if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating

this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our

current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather

than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the

profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be

interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those

who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing

anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly

does it advance the profession?

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote:

 

>

> R,

>

> I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to

> use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are

> looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with an

> agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer to

> see more people willing to get involved with making the process better and

> less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our

> profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement on

> the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it

> happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that

> even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean

> another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done

> practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the

> FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it

> for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is

> not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal

> comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more

> forward.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> Chinese Medicine

> acudoc11

> Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

M

>

>

>

> I am as much a stakeholder as the next person.

>

>

>

> Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all

>

> dealings.

>

>

>

> What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide.

>

>

>

> R

>

>

>

>

>

> In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>

> naturaldoc1 writes:

>

>

>

> R,

>

>

>

> I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension by

>

> USDE is way over the top for something like this.

>

>

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

M

 

Thank the system that this kind of thinking is not the order of the day.

Enough is already in evidence.

Let the investigation begin.

 

R

 

 

In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:21:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

Failure to respond to you is not a violation of anything. I do not

consider that there is enough concern to ask for any sort of investigation.

You

have not provided enough data on violations up to this point. If there

were, then I would say let the investigation begin.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:49:57 -0400

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

You can write till the cows fly over the moon and it will not change my

 

opinion.

 

What appears to have taken place needs investigation by USDE and THEY will

 

 

be the ones who will decide to suspend accreditation granting status or

 

not.

 

And this is a BIG DEAL especially if they have violated their own stated

 

procedures....just like schools get suspended by ACAOM. If a school has

 

trouble running properly according to the procedures their status is

pulled and

 

the same should go for ACAOM.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:01:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

Students do cheat, even in our programs as much as in normal college.

 

BTW,That still changes nothing. Suspension is not warranted at this

time. I

 

I would think that the Naturopathic organization had a more issues of a

 

larger concern. That's stop making things larger then they really are.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

 

acudoc11

 

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:42:13 -0400

 

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

If one CHEATED in school and got caught........would it be way over the

 

top

 

 

 

to consider EXPELLING such a student?

 

 

 

Actually suspending accreditation granting status is not much more than a

 

 

 

 

slap on the wrists.

 

 

 

It will send an appropriate message to get their house in order and keep

 

it

 

 

 

in order.

 

 

 

Losing accreditation granting status would be way over the top and

 

 

 

devastating.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

 

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension

 

by

 

 

 

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

________

 

The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with

 

Hotmail.

 

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID283

 

26::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

 

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

 

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

 

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

 

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

 

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the

group

 

requires prior permission from the author.

 

 

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

 

 

necessary.

[Guest guest]

M

 

As I responded to you before many times....I have been more than involved

for the past 15 years.

 

Instead of sitting on the sidelines why don't you involve yourself?

 

Also.....this is not complaining!

This is about being involved in the process.

 

And again.....ACAOM does NOT determine FPD.

Have you failed to read their documentation where even ACAOM states they do

NOT?

Such ideas are unfounded so why do you continue to present them?

 

R

 

 

In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:16:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

Maybe you should think about volunteering to help ACAOM instead of

complaining. In the end, ACAOM will decide if we are going to have the FPD,

they

also decided upon the master's degree and took away the post-graduate OMD

(CA). Involvement is not simply about pointing out ACAOM's failures as they

have helped us to become a profession and not a bunch of unruly

individuals from the 60's. Creating more chaos does little to help.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:50:14 -0400

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

And I think ACAOM is NOT doing a fine job regardless of resources.

 

Organizations such as ACAOM have a DUTY to PRODUCE everything and anything

 

 

asked for.

 

Just like any not-for-profit organization.

 

Their detailed financial records and operational documents are WIDE OPEN

to

 

scrutiny for any of the public to request and investigate.

 

That's the nature of being an accreditation granting organization.

 

They come under the microscope just like they purportedly put the schools

 

under same.

 

You are incorrect - ACAOM does NOT decide FPD.

 

Even ACAOM clearly delineated that it is CONSENSUS of ALL stakeholders

 

which decide FPD.

 

So why do YOU state something oddly different?

 

You state you don't work for ACAOM but do you make money teaching at a

 

school?

 

I don't profit from running or teaching at a school.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:05:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to

 

use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are

 

looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone with

an

 

agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer

to

 

see more people willing to get involved with making the process better

and

 

less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our

 

profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement

on the FPD,

 

at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it happen.

If

 

anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means that even if

 

they were willing to start this change today, it would probably mean

another

 

decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are done

 

practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the

FPD, and

 

as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it for them

 

or they will leav

 

e. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it is not up to me to make

this

 

decision, nor is it up to you. You get an equal comment on this but in

 

the end, they will decide and we need to more forward.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

 

acudoc11

 

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400

 

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

M

 

 

 

I am as much a stakeholder as the next person.

 

 

 

Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all

 

 

 

dealings.

 

 

 

What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide.

 

 

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

 

 

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

 

R,

 

 

 

I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension

by

 

 

 

USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

 

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

________

 

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

 

 

Hotmail.

 

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28

 

326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

 

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

 

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

 

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

 

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

 

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the

group

 

requires prior permission from the author.

 

 

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

 

 

necessary.

[Guest guest]

M

 

NO excuse and NO room for conflict of interest!

It's odd that you see exercising one's rights to be involved in the process

as " complaining " .

Too bad that more of the 27,000 silent majority don't speak out.

Probably because they SEE how special interest groups work and that they

feel it useless.

As you can see.....I am,NOT one of them.

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:11:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

I understand the conflict of interest as we had a local president of an

acupuncture school, which was bought by a chiro college, and this same person

became the president of the acu association. We are very small profession

and so it is almost impossible that at some point you will not have this

occur. I, like you, would like not to see it but we must also remember that

doing things for the " profession " may not always appear to be what is best

for an individual. Before we some organized professional association, we

were all over the map, no standards whatsoever. What we can do is help

them to improve things and not just complain about it.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:03:40 -0400

Re: TCM - ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore it is not only ODD but highly SUSPECT that there are 3

Members

 

of ACAOM who run and/or own schools or heavily involved with AOM schools.

 

 

 

ACAOM is a quasi-governmental agency or at least an organization with a

 

governmental delegated important duty. As such like state Acupuncture

Boards

 

it is highly unethical to have Director Members who OWN and RUN schools

or

 

even teach Continuing Education courses.

 

This is yet another area of concern.

 

The proverbial.... fox guarding the chicken coop?

 

 

 

Also...no one answers the question that with 60 college credit

prerequisite

 

entrance requirement and approximately 200 credits for the ACAOM

 

accredited AOM program (so called funky Masters) is actually equivalent

to a

 

Bachelors, Masters AND more importantly a TRIPLE PhD. YES...that's right

a TRIPLE

 

PhD!

 

 

 

So the Masters is ALREADY a PhD by credits alone.

 

 

 

The AOM schools need to stop bilking prospective students interested in

 

the field with more costly and worthless dream degrees. THIS is what will

 

SCARE away prospective students.

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:48:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

kuangguiyu writes:

 

 

 

Mike -

 

 

 

I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to

 

a).

 

announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving

 

forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response

 

that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan.

 

Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing

 

body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is

 

hardly a witch hunt.

 

 

 

I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process,

 

but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way

 

 

to

 

move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the

 

FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am

 

aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for

 

consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more

 

interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And

 

if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating

 

this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our

 

current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather

 

than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the

 

profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be

 

interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those

 

who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing

 

anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly

 

does it advance the profession?

 

 

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your

inbox.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W

L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

M

 

You know what has been said?

Liars figure and figures lie!

 

Lets not consider that just because the 27,000 didn't speak out that their

voices are worthless.

And let's not monkey with the figures.

2,100 of the 3,000 replies were AGAINST FPD.

 

You quote figures.......would you care to provide the actual reports and

data?

R

 

 

In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:33:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

R,

 

First off those 27,000 had a chance to reply as well. At some point a

study is simply a representation of the population. Let's work on making

things better and not complaining so much.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

M

 

I just sat in on a graduating class for three weeks to help the instructor

colleague evaluate his presentation.

What I found was that even today.... these graduating students haven't a

clue how to handle a patient in clinic.

That's the FAULT of the schools.

Post graduate residency would be a great idea for all grads who are

struggling because their clinic experience was greatly deficient.

It appears that this is a problem across the US with possibly a few

exceptions.

 

As to " some statistics put forth " for the FPD.....as I remember that was

just ONE licensee's wishful thinking.

The way it should be?

Maybe.

The way it will be?

NOT if the night-trade-school cottage industry has anything to say about

it.

 

You can bet that the funky-Masters (really a triple PhD) will go from

$50,000 to over $100,000. and how does that help the patient?

 

R

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/18/2010 10:32:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

Kim,

 

From what I have seen, there were two studies undertaken on this issue.

The latest one, showed support for the FPD and a large number of

participants, especially current students, were in support of this. The FPD

would not

be a redundent degree but one that is deeper in many areas of study and

clinical practice. The state of CA is considering a post-graduate residency

to get students more clinical time as a requirement for licensure. At

present time that would not make sense as there are no current situations that

would work for us. Here the FPD would greatly help. As a former clinical

supervisor, I have seen the level of students that enter the clinic at more

then one OM program and I can say it is very low. We can argue about what

the schools should be doing but adding in one more year of clinical

training and select courses of deeper material is important. Some statistics

were

put forward previously about cost and it appears this would amount to a

very small increas

e to students. A FPD would be entirely different from the DAOM, which we

now see. I would suggest you read the post or article that William Morris

on this issue.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

kuangguiyu

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:48:21 -0700

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike -

 

 

 

I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to

a).

 

announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving

 

forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response

 

that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan.

 

Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing

 

body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is

 

hardly a witch hunt.

 

 

 

I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process,

 

but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way

to

 

move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the

 

FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I

am

 

aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for

 

consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more

 

interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And

 

if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating

 

this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our

 

current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather

 

than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the

 

profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be

 

interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those

 

who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing

 

anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly

 

does it advance the profession?

 

 

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

 

 

 

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:04 PM, mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1wrote:

 

 

 

>

 

> R,

 

>

 

> I think that ACAOM is doing a fine job, with the resources they have to

 

> use. I see no reason to get caught up in a witch hunt, when people are

 

> looking to hang them. Would you provide data or response to someone

with an

 

> agenda to discredit you? I find this very odd behavior. I would prefer

to

 

> see more people willing to get involved with making the process better

and

 

> less about going backwards (change is inevitable and look where our

 

> profession has come). We are seeing many more people showing agreement

on

 

> the FPD, at some point we must honestly ask when we are going to make it

 

> happen. If anything the ACAOM tends to move very slowly, which means

that

 

> even if they were willing to start this change today, it would probably

mean

 

> another decade or two before it really happened (possibly after we are

done

 

> practicing). The future of our profession is much more interested in the

 

> FPD, and as it is their future, we really need to be looking to create it

 

> for them or they will leave. As I do not currently work with ACAOM, it

is

 

> not up to me to make this decision, nor is it up to you. You get an

equal

 

> comment on this but in the end, they will decide and we need to more

 

> forward.

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

> Chinese Medicine

 

> acudoc11

 

> Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:53 -0400

 

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> M

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I am as much a stakeholder as the next person.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Furthermore....they OWE EVERY stakeholder the TRUTH and HONESTY in all

 

>

 

> dealings.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> What is over the top or not is NOT for you to decide.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> R

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> In a message dated 4/17/2010 10:46:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

>

 

> naturaldoc1 writes:

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> R,

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> I find it odd that you think that they owe you a response. Suspension

by

 

>

 

> USDE is way over the top for something like this.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ________

 

> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

 

> Hotmail.

 

>

 

>

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28326:\

:T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

 

>

 

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ---

 

>

 

> Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

 

> http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

>

 

> Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and

 

> acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

>

 

> To change your email delivery settings, click,

 

> and

adjust

 

> accordingly.

 

>

 

> Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the

group

 

> requires prior permission from the author.

 

>

 

> Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

 

> necessary. Links

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your

inbox.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W

L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

---

 

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

 

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

 

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

[Guest guest]

R,

 

I understand the conflict of interest as we had a local president of an

acupuncture school, which was bought by a chiro college, and this same person

became the president of the acu association. We are very small profession and

so it is almost impossible that at some point you will not have this occur. I,

like you, would like not to see it but we must also remember that doing things

for the " profession " may not always appear to be what is best for an individual.

Before we some organized professional association, we were all over the map, no

standards whatsoever. What we can do is help them to improve things and not

just complain about it.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:03:40 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore it is not only ODD but highly SUSPECT that there are 3

Members

 

of ACAOM who run and/or own schools or heavily involved with AOM schools.

 

 

 

ACAOM is a quasi-governmental agency or at least an organization with a

 

governmental delegated important duty. As such like state Acupuncture Boards

 

it is highly unethical to have Director Members who OWN and RUN schools or

 

even teach Continuing Education courses.

 

This is yet another area of concern.

 

The proverbial.... fox guarding the chicken coop?

 

 

 

Also...no one answers the question that with 60 college credit prerequisite

 

entrance requirement and approximately 200 credits for the ACAOM

 

accredited AOM program (so called funky Masters) is actually equivalent to a

 

Bachelors, Masters AND more importantly a TRIPLE PhD. YES...that's right a

TRIPLE

 

PhD!

 

 

 

So the Masters is ALREADY a PhD by credits alone.

 

 

 

The AOM schools need to stop bilking prospective students interested in

 

the field with more costly and worthless dream degrees. THIS is what will

 

SCARE away prospective students.

 

 

 

Richard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/17/2010 8:48:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

 

kuangguiyu writes:

 

 

 

Mike -

 

 

 

I find it very odd behavior for one of our representing organizations to

 

a).

 

announce that they are seeking a CONSENSUS from the profession on moving

 

forward with the FPD and b). receive an overwhelmingly negative response

 

that they then c). interpret as " support " to go forward with their plan.

 

Very odd behavior indeed IMO. And requesting that they, as a representing

 

body for the profession, explain the logic behind such odd behavior is

 

hardly a witch hunt.

 

 

 

I would also prefer to see more people involved in bettering the process,

 

but adding another - basically redundant - degree may not be the best way

 

to

 

move forward. You say that many more people are showing agreement on the

 

FPD. What data are you referring to here? The only concrete data that I am

 

aware of is the two-to-one negative response to the ACAOM's quest for

 

consensus. You also say that the future of our profession is much more

 

interested in the FPD - do you mean current and prospective students? And

 

if so, where do you get the data to support that? And how does creating

 

this new degree 'keep them from leaving'? It seems to me that tweaking our

 

current IMO bloated Master's degree and making it more affordable - rather

 

than more expensive, as the FPD would almost surely be - would advance the

 

profession by making training more accessible to more people who may be

 

interested in it. There are already doctorate programs in place for those

 

who wish to go deeper, so the FPD doesn't really seem to be bringing

 

anything new to the table. Why is the FPD such a necessity and how exactly

 

does it advance the profession?

 

 

 

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.