ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

April 19, 2010

Way too much misinformation.

That was AAAOMs survey on DAOM

In a message dated 4/19/2010 1:24:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

My appologies Dr. Bowser. I recently stated on this forum that Kim posted

ACAOM's study. It was you who did this. My appologies for the misstatement,

but my thanks for posting this. At last we have numbers instead of

hearsay.

Thank you.

Donald J. Snow, Jr., DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> _traditional_traditional_<WBRtraditional_tra_

(Chinese Traditional Medicine )

> _naturaldoc1@naturaldoc1_ (naturaldoc1)

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:17:51 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> Kim,

>

> Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study,

_http://www.aaaomonlhttp://wwhttp://www.http://www.aaaohttp_

(http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf.) Now where is your

study showing huge opposition?

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> _Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_

(Chinese Medicine )

> _kuangguiyu_ (kuangguiyu)

> Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:11:28 -0700

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

Mike -

>

> Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support

for

>

> the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students,

>

> were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am

>

> familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if

>

> approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to

respond

>

> did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be

>

> interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase

to

>

> students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a

>

> little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to

read

>

> it. Thanks.

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser <_naturaldoc1@naturaldoc1_

(naturaldoc1) >wrote:

>

> >

>

> > R,

>

> >

>

> > Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that

put

>

> > it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or

>

> > expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no

response

>

> > really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact

>

> > members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our

>

> > profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the

future. If

>

> > people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included.

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > _Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_

(Chinese Medicine )

>

> > _acudoc11_ (acudoc11)

>

> > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400

>

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 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..... You quote figures.....<WBR>..would you care t

>

> >

>

> > data?

>

> >

>

> > R

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

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

>

> >

>

> > _naturaldoc1@naturaldoc1_ (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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

April 19, 2010

Kim,

The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing labels.

The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and not

descriptive of who or what we represent.

2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago. The

master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could not

otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way.

3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical internship

hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their knowledge base, as

they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded clinical and greater

integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own standards and stop

shooting for the lowest bar.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> Chinese Medicine

> kuangguiyu

> Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:55:27 -0700

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> David -

>

> You appear to be suggesting that if we don't create an FPD then within a

> decade practitioners of other modalities will take over acupuncture. To my

> knowledge this process is already well under way - and the fact that this is

> already occurring has way more to do with a lack of opposition on the part

> of our leadership than the fact that we don't have an FPD. (Please

> enlighten me and accept my apology if I am in error in my belief that there

> is no concerted defense of our profession at the national and state levels

> as I may be out of the loop here. I seem to remember hearing of some

> successful opposition at the state level, but don't have that info at hand

> now.) And how exactly will a new degree within our profession stop the

> subsumption of acupuncture by PTs, etc.?

>

> I agree that we cannot survive without growth, but cannot agree that the

> full practice of Chinese medicine is only attainable through the FPD. I

> believe that there are plenty of people employing the full practice of OM

> now without the benefit of the FPD. In what way do you feel that the FPD

> will somehow complete the full practice of Chinese medicine? What's missing

> and what will it add? Thanks.

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, acuman1 <acuman1 wrote:

>

> >

> > This point is well taken. Let the market decide the issue. Students will

> > vote with their money. If it is a bad bet, those with the FPD wil die on the

> > vine. If it is a good idea, the others will bring their standards up or die

> > on the vine. In either case it will take decades. If we put it off, it will

> > take a decade to get around to it again. We will then see our profession

> > taken over by PT's, NP's and ND's taking over our prime modality,

> > acupuncture (calling it dry needling at first, as they are doing state

> > legislature by state legislature) and us dying on the vine because we chose

> > to keep a FPM.

> > FPM, the twilight of our profession as we move softly into the night.

> > By the way, when it was first proposed by insightful professionals in the

> > early 90's, the colleges were dead set against it because they, to my

> > observation and opinion, didn't want to spend the money. Now, I think they

> > see that our profession will die and they will not have colleges to run and

> > thus have chosen to change their view, albeit 15 years later. Can we afford

> > as a profession to wait? Those speaking against the FPD will be close to

> > retirement or death in the 20-30 years it will take this slow attrition to

> > happen. In my view the choice is about the future of our profession, and

> > being the only medical field without a FPD will provide those with academic

> > backgrounds a job at medical history schools perhaps and we may be provided

> > for continued practice when the state licensure boards are closed as they

> > did with the old ND's in the 50's and 60's. We cannot survive without growth

> > and the full practice of Oriental Medicine which is attainable only with an

> > FPD after the dinosaurs like myself and other vocal pro-opponents die off.

> >

> > David Molony

> >

> > On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:32:41 PM, " mike Bowser "

<naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>>

> > wrote:

> >

> > The ACAOM position paper does not support your supposition about the FPD.

> > From the paper, " It is important to note that the development of these

> > standards did not and do not mandate, or even propose, a transition from the

> > master’s to the professional doctorate as the entry-level degree. Instead,

> > these standards, if adopted by ACAOM will allow institutions to consider

> > developing such programs if they feel that the educational marketplace will

> > support them. An example of how this process might work is provided by the

> > transition made by the physical therapy profession from the master's to the

> > doctorate. This transition was not mandated, but driven entirely by student

> > demand for a professional doctorate in physical therapy. Some professions

> > that have developed professional doctorates have opted to support offering

> > both the master’s and the doctorate degree as first professional degrees

> > in their field. "

> >

> > ACAOM is allowing both the profession and the students to choose if they

> > want to attend a FPD in lieu of a master's degree. I am unsure as to why the

> > resistance to allowing students to make their own choice in attendance. This

> > is not even a real issue.

> >

April 19, 2010

Robert,

can you show proof of these numbers?

I was under the impression that it was the other way around.

K

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:32 PM, <acudoc11 wrote:

>

> 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 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com> 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

>

April 19, 2010

I totally agree with Dr. Bowser. We must raise the bar and take ownership of

our medicine. We must become more involved through sharing either our time

and/or our finances. One of the problems is that I sometime do not trust our

national organization. I want to help financially, but I am afraid they will

not use my money in the way in which I want it used. However, I do agree that

we need a FPD. I also think that our Master's should have been a doctorate from

the beginning. However, we cannot change the past, but we can mold the future

and the FPD is one of the ways we can take ownership of our medicine as academic

equals with the western doctorates.

I also realize that we will not be able to change everybody's minds about this

matter and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, we must work

toward realizing our beliefs with action. The ones with more passion, numbers,

and finances will win.

Sincerely,

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

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:52:31 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> Kim,

>

> The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

> 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing

labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and not

descriptive of who or what we represent.

> 2) Provide a doctorate as entrance, which we should have done long ago. The

master's was an attempt to allow many of our programs to exist that could not

otherwise remain in business. We have come a long way.

> 3) Most importantly, provide us with more theoretical and clinical internship

hours. We often elevate those trained in SE Asia with their knowledge base, as

they are the ones that have a deeper theoretical, expanded clinical and greater

integrative understanding. It is time we raise our own standards and stop

shooting for the lowest bar.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> > Chinese Medicine

> > kuangguiyu

> > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:55:27 -0700

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

> >

> > David -

> >

> > You appear to be suggesting that if we don't create an FPD then within a

> > decade practitioners of other modalities will take over acupuncture. To my

> > knowledge this process is already well under way - and the fact that this is

> > already occurring has way more to do with a lack of opposition on the part

> > of our leadership than the fact that we don't have an FPD. (Please

> > enlighten me and accept my apology if I am in error in my belief that there

> > is no concerted defense of our profession at the national and state levels

> > as I may be out of the loop here. I seem to remember hearing of some

> > successful opposition at the state level, but don't have that info at hand

> > now.) And how exactly will a new degree within our profession stop the

> > subsumption of acupuncture by PTs, etc.?

> >

> > I agree that we cannot survive without growth, but cannot agree that the

> > full practice of Chinese medicine is only attainable through the FPD. I

> > believe that there are plenty of people employing the full practice of OM

> > now without the benefit of the FPD. In what way do you feel that the FPD

> > will somehow complete the full practice of Chinese medicine? What's missing

> > and what will it add? Thanks.

> >

> > Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

> >

> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:48 AM, acuman1 <acuman1 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > This point is well taken. Let the market decide the issue. Students will

> > > vote with their money. If it is a bad bet, those with the FPD wil die on

the

> > > vine. If it is a good idea, the others will bring their standards up or

die

> > > on the vine. In either case it will take decades. If we put it off, it

will

> > > take a decade to get around to it again. We will then see our profession

> > > taken over by PT's, NP's and ND's taking over our prime modality,

> > > acupuncture (calling it dry needling at first, as they are doing state

> > > legislature by state legislature) and us dying on the vine because we

chose

> > > to keep a FPM.

> > > FPM, the twilight of our profession as we move softly into the night.

> > > By the way, when it was first proposed by insightful professionals in the

> > > early 90's, the colleges were dead set against it because they, to my

> > > observation and opinion, didn't want to spend the money. Now, I think they

> > > see that our profession will die and they will not have colleges to run

and

> > > thus have chosen to change their view, albeit 15 years later. Can we

afford

> > > as a profession to wait? Those speaking against the FPD will be close to

> > > retirement or death in the 20-30 years it will take this slow attrition to

> > > happen. In my view the choice is about the future of our profession, and

> > > being the only medical field without a FPD will provide those with

academic

> > > backgrounds a job at medical history schools perhaps and we may be

provided

> > > for continued practice when the state licensure boards are closed as they

> > > did with the old ND's in the 50's and 60's. We cannot survive without

growth

> > > and the full practice of Oriental Medicine which is attainable only with

an

> > > FPD after the dinosaurs like myself and other vocal pro-opponents die off.

> > >

> > > David Molony

> > >

> > > On Apr 18, 2010, at 1:32:41 PM, " mike Bowser "

<naturaldoc1<naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com>>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > The ACAOM position paper does not support your supposition about the FPD.

> > > From the paper, " It is important to note that the development of these

> > > standards did not and do not mandate, or even propose, a transition from

the

> > > master’s to the professional doctorate as the entry-level degree. Instead,

> > > these standards, if adopted by ACAOM will allow institutions to consider

> > > developing such programs if they feel that the educational marketplace

will

> > > support them. An example of how this process might work is provided by the

> > > transition made by the physical therapy profession from the master's to

the

> > > doctorate. This transition was not mandated, but driven entirely by

student

> > > demand for a professional doctorate in physical therapy. Some professions

> > > that have developed professional doctorates have opted to support offering

> > > both the master’s and the doctorate degree as first professional degrees

> > > in their field. "

> > >

> > > ACAOM is allowing both the profession and the students to choose if they

> > > want to attend a FPD in lieu of a master's degree. I am unsure as to why

the

> > > resistance to allowing students to make their own choice in attendance.

This

> > > is not even a real issue.

> > >

April 19, 2010

Richard,

I do not think that ACAOM is responsible for many of the issues we suffer from.

Creating blatantly poor legislation that gives our profession to many others

simply to get a law passed was not their problem, it was ours. State

associations determined the benefit versus cost of doing this and in the end,

made their decision. None of us make like this but then not many were arrested

for practicing medicine w/o a license either. You have to look at our history

and not make blanket accusations that they are to blame for all our issues. It

takes a lot more money for lawsuits then what their budget allows and then they

could not focus upon other services they perform.

As far as stakeholders, it is the current practitioners, students and future

students that really drive the profession. While it is obvious that we work

with the public, it is the above players that determine if schools survive and

if students graduate. Now you might have issue with this but do not forget that

schools have some flexibility in creating their OWN curriculum. It sounds to me

as if you want one govt rule. That would be easier to implement but we would

have less creativity, that some are arguing for currently.

The FPD makes sense for many issues you and others are arguing. The biggie is

that students need more time to assimilate what they are learning as well as

more and deeper theoretical and clinical experiences. By adding on one more

year the hours take us closer to having a legitimate doctorate. Schools should

have the right to choose whether they want a FPD or stick with the over-bloated

master's. Don't let fear keep students from deciding what they want. Also keep

in mind that students at multi-degree health colleges are attending other

programs, in order to get that " doctorate " . It makes perfect sense to provide

that for them and keep their focus more on OM.

Our education is not a PhD, that would be inappropriate.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:53:03 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

You mean the majority of the same students who come out of the Masters

program being unable to do a clinic evaluation? Such students are apparently

unable to evaluate very much. And you think that that's who should decide

the future of the profession? All I can say is......WOW.....just amazing.

Stakeholder does not mean students.....or certainly NOT only students and

even if one includes students as stakeholders they are a very small part of

ALL stakeholders.

If what Mike calls " your leaders " ....were watching the professions back

years ago the profession would not be being carved up by every other

healthcare providers like MDs, PAs, PTs, RNs, etc. Especially the leaders who

were

first formers of ACAOM, CCAOM, NCCAOM and AAAOM. If I recall the position

of such KEY person forming those organizations still has a vision of

acupuncturists as ONLY NEEDLE STICKERS.

The profession was COMPROMISED right from the beginning. Don't blame the

poor situation on stakeholders who are against yet another dream-degree

(called FPD).

Standards are more than enough if the schools DID their jobs properly. The

FPM which is really the equivalent of a TRIPLE PhD and is just fine with

some very minor changes. Then just change the name from a ridiculous FP

Masters to the PhD (FPD) entry level it is already.

As to state legislatures......every state needs to address their own

licensure requirements and scope of practice and not wait for anything on a

national level which unlikely will never occur. That's why LAcs in the

majority of states are needle stickers and only a few states are primary

care with at least one being able to administer IV therapy and has a

formulary. Even Colorado allows Acupuncture Injection therapy.

And if the professional associations did their part we would ALL be like

Hawaii where anyone INCLUDING MDs would have to go to the 4 year program

before they were ALLOWED to use an acupuncture needle. Now that's being

RESPONSIBLE and they did it with a much smaller contingency of licensees than

for

example California.

Richard

In a message dated 4/18/2010 2:51:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

acuman1 writes:

This point is well taken. Let the market decide the issue. Students will

vote with their money. If it is a bad bet, those with the FPD wil die on the

vine. If it is a good idea, the others will bring their standards up or

die on the vine. In either case it will take decades. If we put it off, it

will take a decade to get around to it again. We will then see our profession

taken over by PT's, NP's and ND's taking over our prime modality,

acupuncture (calling it dry needling at first, as they are doing state

legislature

by state legislature) and us dying on the vine because we chose to keep a

FPM.

FPM, the twilight of our profession as we move softly into the night.

By the way, when it was first proposed by insightful professionals in the

early 90's, the colleges were dead set against it because they, to my

observation and opinion, didn't want to spend the money. Now, I think they see

that our profession will die and they will not have colleges to run and

thus have chosen to change their view, albeit 15 years later. Can we afford as

a profession to wait? Those speaking against the FPD will be close to

retirement or death in the 20-30 years it will take this slow attrition to

happen. In my view the choice is about the future of our profession, and being

the only medical field without a FPD will provide those with academic

backgrounds a job at medical history schools perhaps and we may be provided for

continued practice when the state licensure boards are closed as they did

with the old ND's in the 50's and 60's. We cannot survive without growth

and the full practice of Oriental Medicine which is attainable only with an

FPD after the dinosaurs like myself and other vocal pro-opponents die off.

David Molony

April 19, 2010

This is exactly the conflict we have in our profession that divides us. What is

the overall vision of our profession versus small local group's vision, usually

influenced by the state acupuncture associations. Many times the smaller, local

groups know little about legal aspects related to legislation and fail to see

the bigger picture related to their legal decisions, which may be why they have

given acupuncture to others. These groups, of course, have every right to

encourage and participate in acupuncture legislation creation but this is the

major reason why we are having this discussion. If Richard moved to another

state, other then CA or NM, he would be in for a real treat. He enjoys practice

in one of the better states, although it is not perfect either. I noticed a

huge difference in how well LAc's were doing after moving from CA to the

midwest. Practices in the midwest are very small and many appear to work only

part-time.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:52:45 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

David

I am sure you remember that in 1998 I volunteered my time and actually

worked on the AAOM-AAAOM's " Doctor of Oriental Medicine " program.

After AAOM-AAAOM scrapped it, sold it off or succumbed to the powers that

be..........you should remember telling me to MIND MY OWN BUSINESS IN

FLORIDA and to stay out of national affairs. Which strangely enough I thought

GOOD advice.

So please don't give the impression that I did not want to be involved or

never was just because I didn't care to be on ANY Board of Directors.

It was obvious that my involvement was not wanted.

Richard

In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:41:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

acuman1 writes:

Yes, the process of a takeover is already under way. I didn't see your

name on the board of directors of the AAAOM even though they barely got

enough folks to run. Someone who had ideas and energy could easily have had a

seat and done some good.

April 19, 2010

We have more important issues when we cannot locate the actual numbers in our

profession.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:56:48 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Kokko

Impressions are just what we don't need.

That's why ACAOM has been requested nicely to PRODUCE the figues and so far

there has been nothing.

That is what moves a complaint forward.

Can YOU show proof of ACAOM's numbers which caused you to have such an

IMPRESSION?

Please do so.......the 2,100 stakeholders that were recorded against FPD

are waiting.

Richard not Robert

In a message dated 4/19/2010 11:02:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

johnkokko writes:

Robert,

can you show proof of these numbers?

I was under the impression that it was the other way around.

K

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:32 PM, <acudoc11 wrote:

>

> 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 <naturaldoc1%40hotmail.com> 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

>

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

>

--

" when you smile, you defy gravity "

www.tcmreview.com

[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.

April 19, 2010

R,

My point exactly. You might want to connect the dots about how the small groups

in our profession helped to create havoc in legislation.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:53:31 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Michael Bowser

Richard is not in CA or NM.

Richard is in Florida involved in Florida APs destiny.

IF other states would follow there would be a lot less problems in the

overall profession.

Richard

In a message dated 4/19/2010 11:32:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

This is exactly the conflict we have in our profession that divides us.

What is the overall vision of our profession versus small local group's

vision, usually influenced by the state acupuncture associations. Many times

the smaller, local groups know little about legal aspects related to

legislation and fail to see the bigger picture related to their legal

decisions,

which may be why they have given acupuncture to others. These groups, of

course, have every right to encourage and participate in acupuncture

legislation creation but this is the major reason why we are having this

discussion. If Richard moved to another state, other then CA or NM, he would

be in

for a real treat. He enjoys practice in one of the better states, although

it is not perfect either. I noticed a huge difference in how well LAc's

were doing after moving from CA to the midwest. Practices in the midwest

are very small and many appear to work only part-time.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

April 19, 2010

Kim,

Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study,

http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf. Now where is your

study showing huge opposition?

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

kuangguiyu

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:11:28 -0700

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Mike -

Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support for

the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students,

were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am

familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if

approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to respond

did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be

interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase to

students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a

little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to read

it. Thanks.

Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote:

>

> R,

>

> Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that put

> it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or

> expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no response

> really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact

> members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our

> profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future. If

> people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> Chinese Medicine

> acudoc11

> Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> 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

>

April 19, 2010

R,

To some extent I can see where you are coming from but for the major modality

that is simply not the case. We have large discrepancy within our laws, compare

CA, NM or even FL to many others and you will see. We still have some with MD

script requirements. That is havoc.

There is some variability within the chiro community but the DC's are

primarycare in all 50 states and are allowed to practice spinal adjusting fully

as a result.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:06:01 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

MWB

Where is the havoc in legislation.

Each state is different for just about every profession except MDs.

Just look at your Chiropractic profession....all over the Board.

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:04:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

My point exactly. You might want to connect the dots about how the small

groups in our profession helped to create havoc in legislation.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

April 19, 2010

Richard,

So you are saying we should discontinue the acupuncture-only programs. Another

example of havoc.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:08:41 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

David

Windmill to you not to me especially with all the advances we have made

since 1998 in Florida. I owe you a debt of gratitude of turning me away from

the national issues to focus on Florida. Thanks so very much.

By the way...if you and AAOM-AAAOM had cared to even ASK, the Class Action

RICO lawsuit cost absolutely NOTHING.

As to NOT knowing about it......please. Tell that story to someone else.

Everyone reads Acupuncture Today.

It was clearly published in 2004:

_http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=28468_

(http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=28468)

Florida even at the start (1980) with the two year program was ALWAYS

Oriental Medicine. Funny that you mention this because when we saw the move in

the late 1990's to totally restrict the profession to

needles-only............ by STATUTUTORY changes we MADE Oriental Medicine a

subset of

Acupuncture. Kind of ass backwards but it got the job done of protecting the

profession here in Florida.

It appears that other state oprganizations were not watching the ball in

their respective states and neither were the national organizations. And

those national orgs interested in the school cottage industry of making big

bucks were watching their own pockets and not the professions best interests.

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:10:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

acuman1 writes:

Everyone has their windmills...Every

Ours was to hold the schools and the powers that be (NCCA, NASCAOM and

etc) feet to the fire regarding our profession. You know, those with the money

in our profession at the time. As usual, with little money and relatively

few members to provide any (we did charge membership fees so we had fewer

members, bless everyone who cared enough to participate) we had to work to

stimulate the others to get ethical.

The RICO deal was perhaps not considered to be a useful use of our very

limited time and or money, I guess. I don't even remember much discussion

about it. Sorry that others may have disagreed with your windmill choice.

To our benefit, AAOM's much smaller windmills have pretty much panned out

and the NCCAOM and the ACAOM have become as favorable to the advance of our

profession as any non-profit organizations can be, and the CCAOM seems to

have seen the writing on the wall regarding the FPD, finally. So. I have

some glimmer of hope that the independent OM profession may survive.

Don't get me wrong, Richard. I have respect for all you have done in

political circles. My hope is that you do not let your self prevent furtherance

of the profession by your disagreement with the particular way it is done.

David of AAOM (in my day, acupuncture was a modality of Oriental Medicine

and didn't need to be distinguished as its own field)

PS Was RICO one of Lucille Ball's husbands?

April 19, 2010

Thanks to Kim, we now have these allusive numbers and according to the study,

only around 900 practitioners responded with 65% favorable to the FPD. That, my

friends, is a majority. I do not see 2100 voting against the FPD, there were

not even that many votes in the total.

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

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:17:51 +0000

> RE: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> Kim,

>

> Here are the numbers from ACAOM's recent study,

http://www.aaaomonline.info/FPD_Survey_Report_Results.pdf. Now where is your

study showing huge opposition?

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> Chinese Medicine

> kuangguiyu

> Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:11:28 -0700

> Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

Mike -

>

> Where are your numbers? You claim that the latest study " showed support for

>

> the FPD and a large number of participants, especially current students,

>

> were in support of this. " How do you figure? The latest study that I am

>

> familiar with showed a two-to-one vote against the FPD. And if

>

> approximately 70% of acupuncturists who were interested enough to respond

>

> did so negatively, how does that possibly qualify as support? I would be

>

> interested to see the figures you mention that suggest the cost increase to

>

> students for the FPD would be minimal. Could you also please provide a

>

> little more information on the piece by Will Morris - I would like to read

>

> it. Thanks.

>

> Kim Blankenship, L.Ac.

>

> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote:

>

> >

>

> > R,

>

> >

>

> > Where do you get your numbers from? I have heard other estimates that put

>

> > it less. Are you including those that do not practice or are retired or

>

> > expired? My point is that people have the option to respond and no response

>

> > really means no interest. ACAOM made many different efforts to contact

>

> > members and ask for input. If only 5,000 of us are interested in our

>

> > profession, then I guess we will be the ones that determine the future. If

>

> > people choose not to respond that is their choice to not be included.

>

> >

>

> > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chinese Medicine

>

> > acudoc11

>

> > Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:14:11 -0400

>

> > Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > 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

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

April 19, 2010

Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about. But

it appears they were misquoted.

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:26:57 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Let's not try to con the community.

In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:25:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

Thanks to Kim, we now have these allusive numbers and according to the

study, only around 900 practitioners responded with 65% favorable to the FPD.

That, my friends, is a majority. I do not see 2100 voting against the FPD,

there were not even that many votes in the total.

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

April 19, 2010

You can go to the same source Kim posted and see the same things we see. Show

us your numbers if you can. If not, stop accusing people of playing games. It

appears that the old saying is true. The guilty dog barks first.

I, for one, went the extra mile. I have earned a doctorate, so the argument in

moot for me. The doctorate made a big difference to me in my practice and how

others treat me. Patients like going to a doctor, and MDs and Chiros treat me

differently.

Should having the doctorate make that kind of difference? Is this a superficial

society in which we live? Could be. But it is what it is,and I for one have

experienced the difference. I have also experienced resentment from those who

don't have the doctorate. That's OK too. I have a very successful practice and

would like to see ALL in our profession with a successful practice. I believe

the FPD is a nice first step.

I'm out of here.

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

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:35:17 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

At all times the numbers which were asked for from ACAOM and in this group

were the ones ACAOM tallied of which 2,092 were against FPD out of 3,000.

So lets stop playing games.

You guys can continue this insanity between yourselves..........count me

out of this.

And the complaint (Both CANs and mine) will move forward toward a much

needed INVESTIGATION.

In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:30:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

don83407 writes:

Who is trying to con whom? These are the numbers you were talking about.

But it appears they were misquoted.

April 19, 2010

Sorry, Mike, but every time you bring this up, I will be here to let you know

that there is NO discussion of changing licensure levels. At the most recent

meeting of the CCAOM, it was in fact discussed that there is NO NEED to change

the level of licensure and that a change in licensure is not at this time the

eventual outcome of bringing forward a higher educational degree.

You and I have gone back and forth a couple of times on this issue, and I just

want Kim and any others reading this to know that the CCAOM at least, is most

definitely not a proponent of changing licensure levels. The original motion,

brought in 2003, to investigate possible changes in entry level degrees,

endorsed the Master's as entry level. Even with the 2009 motion to move forward

on the development of the FPD, there has been no discussion to move away from

the Master's as the entry level into licensure.

The CCAOM is now engaged in gathering information from other professions who

have multiple levels of academic degree, some of whom adopted a strategy to

eventually eliminate a Master's as they developed a doctorate, and some who did

not. There is no foregone conclusion about licensing changing.

Valerie Hobbs L. Ac.

Chinese Medicine , mike Bowser

<naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> Kim,

>

> The FPD will do several things that are vital for our survival:

> 1) Combine education and licensure. We currently have several differing

labels. The most common designation we use is LAc, which is a technician and

not descriptive of who or what we represent.