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

ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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 increase 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

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:32:30 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

R,

 

Where are the facts that support this position?

 

Some schools do a much better job of prepping their students then others. The

real issue, as it appears, is why are lesser programs allowed to teach lower

standards? Answer is that if we did not then we would have fewer schools

(inside the profession and more outside teaching as rogue programs) and less of

a profession. The post grad residencies would ONLY work if you have ample

access to them, and our profession is not even close to this hurdle. It all

comes back to the issue of our master degree being almost at doctoral level but

needs some tweaking in rigor of theory and increased internship hours. The FPD

is really an answer to many of these issues. There is only so much time that a

school has to develop its students (four years is not enough). We also need to

get quality students and raise the entry level.

 

Educational expense is what it is. Students will decide if they ultimately feel

that the cost of attendance is worth the expense. That is not something that

you or I should be interfering with. I have encouraged many students to look at

this factor and decide for themselves. They are the ones that will be paying it

back. BTW, many in the post graduate DAOM's have mentioned that these

additional hours of education have impacted their practices dramatically.

 

I have found that a program, I attended, was more expensive then many others I

have worked within and yet I received a much better educational experience then

what I have been noticing. Costs for lower quality programs is raising, as

well. Cost of program does still equate, to some extent, with better education.

 

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.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:23:39 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

R,

 

By this logic then we really do not have a profession. If people do not speak,

then they will not be included, plain and simple. That is how life works.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:10:42 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

R,

 

You might want to review the ACAOM website on this issue

(http://acupuncture.edu/students/documents/docsurvey.html). If ACAOM is not the

one making the decision on the FPD, as you mention, then why are fighting with

them on this issue?

 

I read over their position on the FPD (http://asny.org/FPD-12-18-09.pdf) and

found their process makes a lot of sense, as it allows both schools and students

to decide if this is what they want to have. Why are you so afraid to allow

people to make their own decisions? This will NOT change any law or force

anyone to get a FPD.

 

I am involved and agree with ACAOM on this issue. This appears to be the

soundest way to move our profession forward and allow for freedom of choice.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:06:11 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

R,

 

Again, I see no reason for any investigation of ACAOM. You have failed to

present anything substantial that supports your opinion, other then your

opinion. I think they are doing an admirable job with trying to guide our

profession forward. Even the FPD process is not binding but it allows schools

that want to develop this to begin to create the future. This is a choice for

students and administrators to make and will not make any change to your current

state laws that determine licensure.

 

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

 

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:01:41 -0400

Re: ACAOM and Complaint about FPD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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 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 masterÂ’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 masterÂ’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. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Kim

 

Excellent points.

 

I have asked and never received any response from David while he was still

at AAAOM as to WHY not ONE state association or for that matter even the

AAAOM ever sued in a Class Action RICO lawsuit.... ALL of the top insurance

reimbursement carriers for practicing discriminatory reimbursement practices

AGAINST the only truly qualified licensed acupuncturists?

 

Why was I the ONLY one who ever even tried?

And maybe more importantly - WHY was there not one state association or the

AAAOM to have JOINED in on my class action Anti-Racketeering lawsuit?

The system SAW that the leadership was as apathetic as the rank and file.

Just like we have seen that 27,000 stakeholders out of 30,000 failed to

respond to ACAOM's call regarding FPD. Apathy from top to bottom.

 

As to a 2010 attempt by the PTs in Florida during this current legislative

session to practice acupuncture by removing PROHIBITIVE language in their

statute...........I made sure that bill was KILLED.

 

Richard

 

 

In a message dated 4/18/2010 6:55:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

kuangguiyu writes:

 

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.

>

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

>

>

>

 

 

[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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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.

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Everyone has their windmills........

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?

 

On Apr 18, 2010, at 7:35:30 PM, acudoc11 wrote:

 

I have asked and never received any response from David while he was still 

at AAAOM as to WHY not ONE state association or for that matter even the 

AAAOM ever sued in a Class Action RICO lawsuit.... ALL of the top insurance 

reimbursement carriers for practicing discriminatory reimbursement practices 

AGAINST the only truly qualified licensed acupuncturists?

 

Why was I the ONLY one who ever even tried?

And maybe more importantly - WHY was there not one state association or the 

AAAOM to have JOINED in on my class action Anti-Racketeering lawsuit?

The system SAW that the leadership was as apathetic as the rank and file.

Just like we have seen that 27,000 stakeholders out of 30,000 failed to 

respond to ACAOM's call regarding FPD. Apathy from top to bottom.

 

As to a 2010 attempt by the PTs in Florida during this current legislative 

session to practice acupuncture by removing PROHIBITIVE language in their 

statute...........I made sure that bill was KILLED. 

 

Richard

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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. 

At the very least work in your state to keep the hounds at bay there. These

people care little for competency, only for payment, and one more modality to

bill for on top of others is a few bucks more.

 

As far as enlightenment, if you haven't seen it yet, then your blinders (of some

material I don't know you well enough to discern) render it invisible to you.

Perhaps it is that you think of what we do as singly acupuncture instead of a

field of medicine. Oriental Medicine is a field of medicine which provides the

best background for gaining an ability to do a variety of things better than any

other provider, one of which is acupuncture. Acupuncture is merely a modality,

but it is one that requires a study of Oriental Medicine precepts to understand

its capability and function enough to do it well. 

 

As you can see, I am no longer involved with the national organization and being

bound by rules which limit personal views. If someone practices acupuncture

without the understanding of food medicine and the use of herbal medicine, they

are doing their patients a disservice due to poor choices and perhaps personal

dogmatism. Do I feel that this is ok? It is personal choice, just as an MD makes

the choice to do surgery when Oriental Medicine or even acupuncture alone will

do the job in many cases. It is not my choice because I do not wish to limit

myself just as I refer out to a MD when it is indicated and let them know what I

think is going on.

Was I taught this in college, or even is this taught now? I am hopeful that at

least one college will provide a FPD education that will provide someone with a

majority of the skills that I had to required over decades so they can do well

for patients. I'll refer to that college, and you will refer students to the one

that best suits your proclivities. And yes. A full first professional doctorate

level education is necessary for this sort of interaction with patients, for

their benefit.

 

David Molony

 

On Apr 18, 2010, at 6:55:27 PM, " Kim Blankenship " <kuangguiyu wrote:

 

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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

MWB

 

Small groups are what MAKE up the overall profession if you hadn't noticed.

 

And in a democracy (we still for the moment live in one) EVERYONE has an

equal voice which it appears you would like to see be circumvented.

 

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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

MWB

 

LAcs can practice needling in almost all the states. So What?

And what does that analogy have to do with the important issues which the

DCs don't have and are havoc?

DCs are all over the Board other than back-cracking.

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

 

In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:21:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Come on MWB

 

Don't try to pawn off AAAOMs statistics as if they were ACAOMs!!

 

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

 

It is boring to continue to try to discuss these issues....so I will not

bother the group anymore.

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 4/19/2010 12:17:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

 

 

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

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...