thirty years

[Guest guest]

Thirty years ago, there were only a handful of states that licensed

acupuncturists. At that time, a few anglos were also starting to

practice chinese herbology as well. There were very few books of any

quality, but some other things have changed little. In 1975, one could

have access to an entire raw chinese herb pharmacy, easily in the

coastal chinatowns. Subhuti dharmananda began to write seriously about

chinese herbs in the mid to late seventies and also made available raw

herbs from a san francisco importer. There were no restrictions on the

raw herbs then as now. So licensing has not really changed anything on

that accord. Licensing has also not resulted in insurance coverage for

herbs. It has not resulted in educating the public that TCM is an

internal medicine. Really, very little at all has changed for chinese

herbologists in the past 30 years in america. Except for one thing.

 

We have lots of books, many of which probably would have never been

written without the reward of becoming required texts for board exams.

By all measures, the institutionalization of TCM in america has

certainly led to an explosion in literature, the value of which cannot

be denied. But perhaps the most important of those texts would have

been written anyway if a thriving unlicensed profession had developed.

Unlicensed does not have to mean unschooled. I practiced as a lay

herbalist for 3 years before going to school. I went to school not for

a license, but to learn in a structured environment, something that

works for me. I suspect many herbalists would have went to school

anyway, just as many still do today on their own dime at various

schools in the US and elsewhere. The profession of acupuncture has

certainly gained from licensure, but it is not clear that herbalists

have. In fact, since chinese herbalists can practice in ANY state

without a license, but only 16 states with one, there is certainly no

advantage at all to being licensed if one solely practices herbology.

And lots of downsides and fees.

 

This also means instead of spending 80,000 to go to an acupuncture

school, a student could pay 5-10,000 for an intensive

apprenticeship/self-study course instead. And easily get more out of

it with a good teacher and good texts. Since we are not going to get

either insurance or research dollars, why bother playing ball with the

man in the first place? Most herbalists in the US are already

unlicensed and have no intention of doing otherwise. While herbs are

part of acupuncture scope of practice in 16 states and taught as most

schools, I do not believe most Lac's would describe themselves as

herbalists. In other words, there are more herbalists, chinese and

otherwise, outside the profession of acupuncture. Just because

acupuncturists are so dead set on licensing and doctoral degrees, etc.

does not mean herbalists should follow suit. We have a great deal

already with the protections of british common law. Why sacrifice that

for a bunch of state imposed restrictions?

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Mar 2, 2005, at 1:47 PM, wrote:

 

> We have a great deal

> already with the protections of british common law. Why sacrifice that

> for a bunch of state imposed restrictions?

 

I'm not sure what we're sacrificing. Anybody care to describe exactly

what British common law gives herbalists?

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

Al,

You can read about common law and herbalism in one of Roger Wicke's articles

here: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html#prosecution.

 

Al Stone <alstone wrote:

 

On Mar 2, 2005, at 1:47 PM, wrote:

 

> We have a great deal

> already with the protections of british common law. Why sacrifice that

> for a bunch of state imposed restrictions?

 

I'm not sure what we're sacrificing. Anybody care to describe exactly

what British common law gives herbalists?

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Here we go again. This all sounds nice but is very naive. The current

issues with the EU and its impact in this country are troubling as is the

numerous FDA bills looking to take away yours and my right to choose. Don't

think it cannot happen cause it just might. As for the history lesson, a

lot has changed both in our profession and the public's perception of it.

If it had not then we would still be practicing illegally out of our garage

or basements with poor supplies. It takes awhile for things to happen and

we are no different. It took the DC a lot longer to get where they are and

yet the ND are making waves by shortening the DC learning curve for

themselves. Small world, maybe we should take a page out of their playbook.

I guess you do not see how important it is for us to be licensed. Too bad

as this has opened up doors for many practitioners. I would predict that

the profession in Asia would not show support for us moving back in time. I

think they would side with the MD as they support more research and

utilization in medical settings. Our profession will all but cease to exist

if your idea was reality. By the way, there would be no loans and I know

of few students who can come up with the $10K on their own. We have a

profession that has expanded and is creating greater professional ops for

its graduates as well as greater public exposure and utilization. Let's

start looking ahead at how we can make it better rather then sabotaging

ourselves. I have joined a group in MN that lobbying a bill to get a single

payer health system. There seems to be alot of support for it as the HMO

hve not been able to substantiate any cost savings, which was their reason

for existence. Let's not forget that we practice medicine and we help

people, let's be professional about our future.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> <

>

>cha

> thirty years

>Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:47:29 -0800

>

>Thirty years ago, there were only a handful of states that licensed

>acupuncturists. At that time, a few anglos were also starting to

>practice chinese herbology as well. There were very few books of any

>quality, but some other things have changed little. In 1975, one could

>have access to an entire raw chinese herb pharmacy, easily in the

>coastal chinatowns. Subhuti dharmananda began to write seriously about

>chinese herbs in the mid to late seventies and also made available raw

>herbs from a san francisco importer. There were no restrictions on the

>raw herbs then as now. So licensing has not really changed anything on

>that accord. Licensing has also not resulted in insurance coverage for

>herbs. It has not resulted in educating the public that TCM is an

>internal medicine. Really, very little at all has changed for chinese

>herbologists in the past 30 years in america. Except for one thing.

>

>We have lots of books, many of which probably would have never been

>written without the reward of becoming required texts for board exams.

>By all measures, the institutionalization of TCM in america has

>certainly led to an explosion in literature, the value of which cannot

>be denied. But perhaps the most important of those texts would have

>been written anyway if a thriving unlicensed profession had developed.

>Unlicensed does not have to mean unschooled. I practiced as a lay

>herbalist for 3 years before going to school. I went to school not for

>a license, but to learn in a structured environment, something that

>works for me. I suspect many herbalists would have went to school

>anyway, just as many still do today on their own dime at various

>schools in the US and elsewhere. The profession of acupuncture has

>certainly gained from licensure, but it is not clear that herbalists

>have. In fact, since chinese herbalists can practice in ANY state

>without a license, but only 16 states with one, there is certainly no

>advantage at all to being licensed if one solely practices herbology.

>And lots of downsides and fees.

>

>This also means instead of spending 80,000 to go to an acupuncture

>school, a student could pay 5-10,000 for an intensive

>apprenticeship/self-study course instead. And easily get more out of

>it with a good teacher and good texts. Since we are not going to get

>either insurance or research dollars, why bother playing ball with the

>man in the first place? Most herbalists in the US are already

>unlicensed and have no intention of doing otherwise. While herbs are

>part of acupuncture scope of practice in 16 states and taught as most

>schools, I do not believe most Lac's would describe themselves as

>herbalists. In other words, there are more herbalists, chinese and

>otherwise, outside the profession of acupuncture. Just because

>acupuncturists are so dead set on licensing and doctoral degrees, etc.

>does not mean herbalists should follow suit. We have a great deal

>already with the protections of british common law. Why sacrifice that

>for a bunch of state imposed restrictions?

>

>

>

>

>Chinese Herbs

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This article is an interesting read but does not address the question of

what it is that we are sacrificing nor does it adequately discuss common

law.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Jamie Koonce <untothewholeperson

>

>

>Re: thirty years

>Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:04:41 -0800 (PST)

>

>Al,

>You can read about common law and herbalism in one of Roger Wicke's

>articles here: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html#prosecution.

>

>Al Stone <alstone wrote:

>

>On Mar 2, 2005, at 1:47 PM, wrote:

>

> > We have a great deal

> > already with the protections of british common law. Why sacrifice that

> > for a bunch of state imposed restrictions?

>

>I'm not sure what we're sacrificing. Anybody care to describe exactly

>what British common law gives herbalists?

>

>--

>

>Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

>-Adlai Stevenson

>

>

>

>

>

>Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

>board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

>free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 

 

I agree that people practicing Chinese herbal medicine should not have

to be licensed acupuncturists. I think the conflation of these two

separate but related specialties was a great historical mistake.

However, having myself been busted for practicing medicine without a

license, I have yet to be convinced that British Common Law really

does save American herbalists' bacon. Twenty or more years ago here in

Boulder, Hanna Krueger, a well known Western herbalist, was

successfully prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. The

way I read Colorado's Medical Practices Act, anyone who holds

themselves out to the public as practicing any healing modality for

pay who is not specifically exempted from the Medical Practices Act by

contravening legislation is practicing medicine without a license and

is subject to prosecution for same. The only reason that more people

aren't popped for this is that it is a complaint driven system.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Medical Practices Act, anyone who holds

themselves out to the public as practicing any healing modality for

pay

>>>That is why some are now setting their practices as privet clubs, and some

state that the medical act than does not apply. You can do surgery if you want.

Apparently you can still have a regular practice as well.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

There is less of this interpretation and more that if you do something then

you are guilty regardless of payment. If you charge memberships like a club

where you accept fees in advance for future services you might be guilty of

practicing insurance without a license. This is the position of the NAIC

(national association of insurance commissioners) on prepaid services by

healthcare providers. In this time of economic hardhips, states will start

to enforce these laws. Sorry.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: thirty years

>Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:46:01 -0600

>

>Medical Practices Act, anyone who holds

>themselves out to the public as practicing any healing modality for

>pay

> >>>That is why some are now setting their practices as privet clubs, and

>some state that the medical act than does not apply. You can do surgery if

>you want. Apparently you can still have a regular practice as well.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

See for explanation of what " common law " (another term for " judicial case law " )

provides:

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html

The above article outlines several hundred years of American (and British) case

law. It is very relevant to the current debate over whether to license

herbology. The article summarize the current state of the " common law " of

non-licensed herbal practice in most states.

 

Most western herbalists are aware of this information, or at least the general

principles, which is why the vast majority of them are adamantly opposed to

licensure.

TCM professionals tend, on the other hand, to believe that they have received

most of their rights and privileges through statutory licensure, which is true

for acupuncture, but not for Chinese herbology. As Todd has pointed out, many

states place restrictions on acupuncturists who wish to also practice herbs, or

else outright prohibit it.

 

Roger

 

 

> Al Stone <alstone

>Re: thirty years

>On Mar 2, 2005, at 1:47 PM, wrote:

>> We have a great deal

>> already with the protections of british common law. Why sacrifice that

>> for a bunch of state imposed restrictions?

>

>I'm not sure what we're sacrificing. Anybody care to describe exactly

>what British common law gives herbalists?

>

>

>Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

>-Adlai Stevenson

 

 

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

I would have to respectfully disagree. I was practicing in Boulder at the time

you were being persecuted and prosecuted. It was your experience that set me to

worrying about this very issue, and I did a lot of research on it. I've also

followed cases of prosecution for practicing medicine without a license around

the country. In ***not one case*** did I find that the prosecution based its

cases on principles other than those outlined in:

 

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr5.summ.html

 

I challenge anyone on this list to show me a successfully prosecuted case

anywhere in the USA in which the prosecution did not follow these basic

guidelines.

 

In a nutshell, all of the people that I know who were prosecuted made usually at

least two or more of the following mistakes:

 

(1) Referring to him- or herself as " doctor " (rather than " herbalist " or

health consultant, or similar non-statutorily protected words).

(2) Allowing clients to call him- or herself " doctor " , without correcting

them.

(3) Claiming to diagnose, prescribe for, and treat medical conditions

(rather than giving or recommending herbs to help improve one's health).

(4) " Prescribing " herbal " medicine " (rather than giving or recommending

herbs to improve one's health)

 

It is quite possible to practice Chinese herbology without doing any of the

above and to stay on the side of common law right, as set forth in the first

article above. While this may seem word-play to some extent, that is largely how

the law game is set up, and if one does not wish to play by the rules, dire

consequences may result. In my own classes I routinely correct students when, in

the course of a clinical case, they accidentally use one of the evil words. It

does take some practice, as many people are in the habit of thinking medically -

patients, medicine, diseases, cures, therapies, etc. Also, standard printed

disclaimers offer some protections, especially if your intent and your actions

are consistent with the disclaimer. For example, I have the following on the

front page of our website:

 

The information on RMHI's website is

educational and general in nature and should

not be construed as medical advice.

Information provided is not intended for the

purpose of disease diagnosis or treatment.

Individuals desiring help for specific

health problems should seek advice from

qualified professionals.

 

You will see these types of disclaimers more frequently on the websites and

publications of western herbalists, as they generally seem to be more

politically and legally savvy. I rarely see such disclaimers on TCM websites.

It's such a simple little thing to do.

 

Moreover, the public is so in favor of alternative health modalities of all

types, that prosecutors know that they must have a water-tight case before

proceeding. Consequently, in most of the cases I've followed in the news, the

practioners were guilty of violating numerous of these common law guidelines.

For example: the case of Hulda Clark (in Indiana? I think) - she called herself

Dr. Clark (she did have a Ph.D. in some relevant subject, I think it may have

been biochemistry) and claimed to diagnose and treat cases of AIDS with some far

out methods (electronic " zappers " for one). She actually won her jury trial, in

spite of making all of these mistakes, which I teach my own students to avoid

like the plague. I also seem to remember being told that Hanna Krueger in

Boulder made similar mistakes, but it was so long ago, I'm not sure.

 

 

Also, Bob, I do agree with you that the practice of acupuncture and herbology

should be distinct and separate as professions. Their confluence has been a

great comedy of errors:

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2004-2.html

Why TCM Herbology needs to become an independent profession, separate from

acupuncture

 

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

 

 

 

 

> Thu, 03 Mar 2005 17:36:22 -0000

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>Re: thirty years

>

>

>

>I agree that people practicing Chinese herbal medicine should not have

>to be licensed acupuncturists. I think the conflation of these two

>separate but related specialties was a great historical mistake.

>However, having myself been busted for practicing medicine without a

>license, I have yet to be convinced that British Common Law really

>does save American herbalists' bacon. Twenty or more years ago here in

>Boulder, Hanna Krueger, a well known Western herbalist, was

>successfully prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. The

>way I read Colorado's Medical Practices Act, anyone who holds

>themselves out to the public as practicing any healing modality for

>pay who is not specifically exempted from the Medical Practices Act by

>contravening legislation is practicing medicine without a license and

>is subject to prosecution for same. The only reason that more people

>aren't popped for this is that it is a complaint driven system.

>

>Bob

>

 

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

[Guest guest]

Also, Bob, I do agree with you that the practice of acupuncture and herbology

should be distinct and separate as professions. Their confluence has been a

great comedy of errors

>>>>Luckily you guys are in a very small minority opinion

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I understand what you are saying but would add that while you are worried

about having to become licensed your access to herbs is about to be cut-off.

There will not be any need for you or the herbal profession of which you

speak as it will no longer exist. Our current times have created a

completely disfunctional political leadership that does not care about your

rights as citizens. This group in power does not follow the laws as is

evident by the usage of federal funds to take out ads to convince the people

that " no child left behind " is a great program or that social security is in

such dire straits that we need to scrap it. Do you see my point? Laws are

being manipulated, circumvented (FDA supplements act) or ignored. Until we

deal with this at a political level everything else is for naught.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>rw2

>

>

> RE: thirty years

>Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:23:31 -0700

>

>

>Before you conclude that supporting non-licensure for TCM herbology is

> " naive " - I have to ask again - have you read the following? Because if you

>haven't you have not taken into consideration the opinions of not only many

>herbalists, but many modern economists like Milton Friedman, who actually

>goes so far as to claim that we would all be better off if the medical

>profession itself were de-licensed and opened up to competition. No more

>forced vaccinations or toxic cancer chemotherapy just because patients

>within the system perceive that they have no alternatives.

>

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

> There have been many debates on various Internet discussion

> groups over pro- and anti-licensure for herbal practice, TCM

> and otherwise. The issue is by no means settled, and it would

> be mistaken to assume that there is concensus. I'm in contact

> with many western-style herbalists, who I would estimate are

> 95+% opposed to licensure. Many western herbalists are also

> more savvy than most TCM herbalists in the U.S., regarding the

> European and American legal tradition and history of herbalism,

> which perhaps explains this high percentage.

>

> 150 years is a short time in human history. Yet that is

> approximately the length of time that licensing of the health

> professions has been a standard within the U.S.A. Before that,

> licensing, even for physicians of all types, was the exception.

> For historical and legal perspectives on licensing, see:

>

>

> http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr4.regul.html

> Dilemmas in regulating the practice of Chinese

> herbology

>

> http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html

> The right to practice herbology, legal history and

> basis

>

> http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr1.hist.html#christianity

> The rise of Christianity and the return of shamanism

> [the use of medical licensing by the Catholic Church

> during the Middle Ages to impose religious dogma upon medical

> practitioners]

>

> http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-2.html#lob

> Orwellian schemes for maximizing health-care industry

> profits

> - How these endanger the practice of herbal medicine

> subheading: Lobbying public officials and influencing

> non-profit

> institutions and the media (on the use of regulation to

> sabotage

> alternative health options)

>

>

>

> The following articles include references and explanations of

> the widely promulgated views of Milton Friedman, a well-known

> economist, on the subject of medical licensing; licensing is

> not the only or even the best way to promote professionalism,

> and several alternatives are discussed.

>

> http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/licensing.htm

> THE CASE AGAINST MEDICAL LICENSING

>

> http://www.libertyhaven.com/personalfreedomissues/

> freespeechorcivilliberties/occuplicen.html

> Occupational Licensure Under Attack

> by Melvin D. Barger

>

> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-246.html

> Cato Policy Analysis No. 246, December 15, 1995

> The Medical Monopoly: Protecting Consumers Or Limiting

> Competition?

> by Sue A. Blevins

>

> http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/

> SvornyDoEconomistsAugust2004.pdf

> Licensing Doctors: Do Economists Agree?

> by SHIRLEY SVORNY*

>

>

> Also, see

> Buhner, Stephen; " Some Arguments against the Standardization of

> Herbalists "

> Herbalgram, No. 58 (2003 Spring) pp.54-58. (Also in webpage

> at:

>

> http://www.herbalgram.org/iherb/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=2524

> This article documents how professional licensing and

> regulation seldom result in

> improved health care delivery, but are almost always

> guaranteed to increase costs,

> to minimize competition, to reduce the public's freedom of

> choice, and in some

> cases, to actually decrease quality of care.

>

>

> The following article describes how mandatory public schooling,

> school accreditation, and professional licensing have been used

> as tools to dumb down the population:

> http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-4.html

> The Dumbing Down of American Education: Implications for

> Herbal Education

>

>

> Regarding licensing of the health care professions, the current

> trend is away from licensing. Just recently, the American

> Massage Therapy Association lobbied for licensure of massage

> therapists in Montana; they were overwhelmingly defeated and

> word is they will not even make an attempt for many years.

> Although 150 years may seem like a long time, the pendulum is

> slowly swinging the other direction and gaining momentum.

> Witness the passage of Health Freedom Acts in three states with

> more considering such. In spite of Patriot-Act insanity,

> perhaps even because of it, the libertarian perspective is

> gaining powerful momentum and the backlash against the

> big-government " nanny state " is strong. I predict there will be

> gains and losses in the next 10-20 years, but the trend is

> clear.

>

>

>Seems this issue keeps coming up, and I'll just keep reminding people to

>inform themselves by reading the above. I have it stored in a handy file so

>that I can cut and paste.

>So far, I've noted very few comments that take issue with any of the facts

>or ideas in the above articles. People seem to prefer instead to dance

>around the issues brought up by these articles, and to pretend that others

>have not already thought very carefully about them.

>

>Codex Alimentarius and the WTO are separate issues - it is not at all clear

>that licensing will protect access to specific herbs by practitioners.

>These issues need to be fought on a broad level - cooperating

>internationally with all groups who are affected. Divided we fall, united

>we stand, etc.

>

>---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

>contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

>Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

>Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

>

>

>

>

> > " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1

> >RE: thirty years

> >

> >

> >Here we go again. This all sounds nice but is very naive. The current

> >issues with the EU and its impact in this country are troubling as is the

> >numerous FDA bills looking to take away yours and my right to choose.

>Don't

> >think it cannot happen cause it just might. As for the history lesson, a

> >lot has changed both in our profession and the public's perception of it.

> >If it had not then we would still be practicing illegally out of our

>garage

> >or basements with poor supplies. It takes awhile for things to happen

>and

> >we are no different. It took the DC a lot longer to get where they are

>and

> >yet the ND are making waves by shortening the DC learning curve for

> >themselves. Small world, maybe we should take a page out of their

>playbook.

>

>

>

>---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

>contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

>Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

>Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

>

>

[Guest guest]

Our profession is not large enough to sustain the kind of split you mention.

Just think of the decrease in numbers of practitioners who might have

benefitted from student loans that otherwise would not. As most seem to

want to see herbs unlicensed and remain so then what happens to herbalists

only. By the way, I have yet to meet one of these practitioners. Our

profession lacks the kind of numbers needed to make education economically

feasible. Separation worked for China. Integration worked for US

practitioners. There are better things that we could be doing then tearing

at the fabric of our own profession. Come on guys this is a ridiculous one.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

>Re: Re: thirty years

>Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:09:04 -0600

>

>Also, Bob, I do agree with you that the practice of acupuncture and

>herbology should be distinct and separate as professions. Their confluence

>has been a great comedy of errors

> >>>>Luckily you guys are in a very small minority opinion

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Separation worked for China.

>>>>Were do you get this. At least when i was there in 1985 you learn both in

china and then specialize.Its beyond my comprehension that some in this

so-called profession would advocate reduction in scope of any kind.Never seen

this anywhere else.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Roger,

 

Ok, I'll look at all this again. I may very well be wrong about all

this. I just know it was no fun being charged with practicing medicine

without a license -- many sleepless nights and a huge expense.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

> >>>>Luckily you guys are in a very small minority opinion

>

 

Iconoclastic thinkers who look at the meta-issues are always in the

minority, at least when they first propose their ideas. History

suggests that it is those who support the status quo who are usually

ultimately out of touch. Being average also implies being mediocre.

Today's heresy is tomorrow's truth.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Mike,

 

While I agree with Todd and Roger that the integration of acupuncture

and Chinese herbal medicine was an historical mistake, it do believe

it is a fait accompli.

 

That being said, I also have no problem with people who choose to take

Roger's suggested path and only practice Chinese herbal medicine.

Oops, I mean health consulting.

 

In fact, I'm going to " put my money where my mouth is " and, as of

today, any of Roger's graduates who want to take Blue Poppy Seminars

Distance Learning courses will now be allowed to. Previously, we only

allowed " licensed health care practitioners " to take our courses.

 

Roger,

 

You've finally convinced me to reverse our Blue Poppy position on your

graduates.

 

Bob

 

, " mike Bowser "

<naturaldoc1@h...> wrote:

> Our profession is not large enough to sustain the kind of split you

mention.

> Just think of the decrease in numbers of practitioners who might have

> benefitted from student loans that otherwise would not. As most

seem to

> want to see herbs unlicensed and remain so then what happens to

herbalists

> only. By the way, I have yet to meet one of these practitioners. Our

> profession lacks the kind of numbers needed to make education

economically

> feasible. Separation worked for China. Integration worked for US

> practitioners. There are better things that we could be doing then

tearing

> at the fabric of our own profession. Come on guys this is a

ridiculous one.

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

> > " " <alonmarcus@w...>

> >

> >

> >Re: Re: thirty years

> >Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:09:04 -0600

> >

> >Also, Bob, I do agree with you that the practice of acupuncture and

> >herbology should be distinct and separate as professions. Their

confluence

> >has been a great comedy of errors

> > >>>>Luckily you guys are in a very small minority opinion

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

At the Shanghai College of CM from 1982-86, students enrolled in one

of three " colleges " or " divisions: " 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

medicine, or 3) pharmacology. Students in divisions #1 and 2 only

learned enough of each other's modality to make referrals, to speak

knowledgably to each other, and to perform simple emergency

treatments. Acupuncturists did not practice herbal medicine, and

internal medical practitioners did not practice acupuncture.

 

Further, go to any Chinese medical hospital even today. In the

internal medicine, gynecology, pediatric, and dermatology departments,

you will not see any acupuncture being performed or prescribed. In the

acupuncture department, you will not see any internal medicine being

prescribed, and, in the tuina department, you will not see either

acupuncture being performed or internal herbal medicine being prescribed.

 

In addition, CM journal articles (both RCTs and case histories) either

deal with acupuncture or herbal medicine protocols, rarely both.

Ninety-five times out of a hundred it is either one or the other. In

fact, there are so few articles that deal with a combination of both

that I tend to translate these as curiousities for our practitioners

who routinely do both. Likewise, 95 out of 100 CM books either deal

with acupuncture or internal medicine, not both.

 

Marnae Ergil has explained all this previously on this forum,

including giving hours of education in each modality. IMO, to argue

that all students of CM in China are educated in both is a

misrepresentation that is either dangerously misinformed or

intentionally less than honest.

 

Bob

 

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Separation worked for China.

> >>>>Were do you get this. At least when i was there in 1985 you

learn both in china and then specialize.Its beyond my comprehension

that some in this so-called profession would advocate reduction in

scope of any kind.Never seen this anywhere else.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Bob -

 

I didn't want to say it all again!

 

Marnae

 

At 12:03 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote:

 

 

>Alon,

>

>At the Shanghai College of CM from 1982-86, students enrolled in one

>of three " colleges " or " divisions: " 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

>medicine, or 3) pharmacology. Students in divisions #1 and 2 only

>learned enough of each other's modality to make referrals, to speak

>knowledgably to each other, and to perform simple emergency

>treatments. Acupuncturists did not practice herbal medicine, and

>internal medical practitioners did not practice acupuncture.

>

>Further, go to any Chinese medical hospital even today. In the

>internal medicine, gynecology, pediatric, and dermatology departments,

>you will not see any acupuncture being performed or prescribed. In the

>acupuncture department, you will not see any internal medicine being

>prescribed, and, in the tuina department, you will not see either

>acupuncture being performed or internal herbal medicine being prescribed.

>

>In addition, CM journal articles (both RCTs and case histories) either

>deal with acupuncture or herbal medicine protocols, rarely both.

>Ninety-five times out of a hundred it is either one or the other. In

>fact, there are so few articles that deal with a combination of both

>that I tend to translate these as curiousities for our practitioners

>who routinely do both. Likewise, 95 out of 100 CM books either deal

>with acupuncture or internal medicine, not both.

>

>Marnae Ergil has explained all this previously on this forum,

>including giving hours of education in each modality. IMO, to argue

>that all students of CM in China are educated in both is a

>misrepresentation that is either dangerously misinformed or

>intentionally less than honest.

>

>Bob

>

> , " "

><alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > Separation worked for China.

> > >>>>Were do you get this. At least when i was there in 1985 you

>learn both in china and then specialize.Its beyond my comprehension

>that some in this so-called profession would advocate reduction in

>scope of any kind.Never seen this anywhere else.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

That is a nice gesture Bob. While I do not want to sound extremist, I

understand where our profession is now and that there are many issues that

lie ahead. We cannot go back in time and I do not think that most of us

would want to. I can remember spending time with Dr. Bernard Jensen

(deciest) and thinking about how he was jailed many times without cause nor

charges, on a Friday.

 

I agree with both of you on some of the issues related to common law and

remaining unlicensed, in fact I joined a group in MN that passed the first

unlicensed practitioner bill in the country. Having said this, I truly

believe that our best bet for a future will come from uniting not dividing

our profession. Students should have a choice on how they wish to practice

but I think most would choose to become L Ac.

 

We have lots of competitive groups that want to further limit our scope of

practice to just acupuncture. Yet they do not tell you that they want to

continue to have unlimited scope. Seems a bit hypocritical. I think we

need to change our designation to one representative of OM in all its

techniques and formal education should present a good op for student

learning.

 

It is hard to let go of the past and for some much more so than others. We

are now in the 21st century. Chinese medicine throughout the world is

moving more and more toward an integrated east-west model. If we create too

much disparity for our profession here we run the risk of losing touch with

the rest of the world and becoming obsolete. In addition, students will

choose to attend programs in SE Asia as they will allow for more employment

ops over our schools. I would like to see a more united front on creating a

better profession, going back in time is not the answer.

 

So gentlemen, how do we move forward from here?

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

> Re: thirty years

>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:51:28 -0000

>

>

>Mike,

>

>While I agree with Todd and Roger that the integration of acupuncture

>and Chinese herbal medicine was an historical mistake, it do believe

>it is a fait accompli.

>

>That being said, I also have no problem with people who choose to take

>Roger's suggested path and only practice Chinese herbal medicine.

>Oops, I mean health consulting.

>

>In fact, I'm going to " put my money where my mouth is " and, as of

>today, any of Roger's graduates who want to take Blue Poppy Seminars

>Distance Learning courses will now be allowed to. Previously, we only

>allowed " licensed health care practitioners " to take our courses.

>

>Roger,

>

>You've finally convinced me to reverse our Blue Poppy position on your

>graduates.

>

>Bob

>

> , " mike Bowser "

><naturaldoc1@h...> wrote:

> > Our profession is not large enough to sustain the kind of split you

>mention.

> > Just think of the decrease in numbers of practitioners who might have

> > benefitted from student loans that otherwise would not. As most

>seem to

> > want to see herbs unlicensed and remain so then what happens to

>herbalists

> > only. By the way, I have yet to meet one of these practitioners. Our

> > profession lacks the kind of numbers needed to make education

>economically

> > feasible. Separation worked for China. Integration worked for US

> > practitioners. There are better things that we could be doing then

>tearing

> > at the fabric of our own profession. Come on guys this is a

>ridiculous one.

> > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

> > > " " <alonmarcus@w...>

> > >

> > >

> > >Re: Re: thirty years

> > >Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:09:04 -0600

> > >

> > >Also, Bob, I do agree with you that the practice of acupuncture and

> > >herbology should be distinct and separate as professions. Their

>confluence

> > >has been a great comedy of errors

> > > >>>>Luckily you guys are in a very small minority opinion

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Insanity is also a minority position. Let's not make claims that we are the

only truthful soles otherwise we start to sound like the Republican

wing-nuts. There are many ops for viewing things in many ways, it is the

creation of a new idea and support for it that is important.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

> Re: thirty years

>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:43:25 -0000

>

>

> > >>>>Luckily you guys are in a very small minority opinion

> >

>

>Iconoclastic thinkers who look at the meta-issues are always in the

>minority, at least when they first propose their ideas. History

>suggests that it is those who support the status quo who are usually

>ultimately out of touch. Being average also implies being mediocre.

>Today's heresy is tomorrow's truth.

>

>Bob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The Chinese-trained practitioners and faculty that I have met (CA and MN)

practice both acu and herbs. Are we saying that they are improperly trained

or lacking in education to perform both?

 

The system in China is very specialized much like WM. Don't students there

get some training in all of these and then go on to specialize?

 

>>Its beyond my comprehension

> >that some in this so-called profession would advocate reduction in

> >scope of any kind.

 

Who is calling for a reduction? My quote prior to this was taken out of

context. I was simply stating that in China they operate a system of

specialization much like that of WM. Our profession, in the states,

requires us to learn it all and hence my comment about integration. We

practice it all, they tend to specialize in one area.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

>Marnae Ergil <marnae

>

>

>Re: Re: thirty years

>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:00:32 -0500

>

>Thanks Bob -

>

>I didn't want to say it all again!

>

>Marnae

>

>At 12:03 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote:

>

>

> >Alon,

> >

> >At the Shanghai College of CM from 1982-86, students enrolled in one

> >of three " colleges " or " divisions: " 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

> >medicine, or 3) pharmacology. Students in divisions #1 and 2 only

> >learned enough of each other's modality to make referrals, to speak

> >knowledgably to each other, and to perform simple emergency

> >treatments. Acupuncturists did not practice herbal medicine, and

> >internal medical practitioners did not practice acupuncture.

> >

> >Further, go to any Chinese medical hospital even today. In the

> >internal medicine, gynecology, pediatric, and dermatology departments,

> >you will not see any acupuncture being performed or prescribed. In the

> >acupuncture department, you will not see any internal medicine being

> >prescribed, and, in the tuina department, you will not see either

> >acupuncture being performed or internal herbal medicine being prescribed.

> >

> >In addition, CM journal articles (both RCTs and case histories) either

> >deal with acupuncture or herbal medicine protocols, rarely both.

> >Ninety-five times out of a hundred it is either one or the other. In

> >fact, there are so few articles that deal with a combination of both

> >that I tend to translate these as curiousities for our practitioners

> >who routinely do both. Likewise, 95 out of 100 CM books either deal

> >with acupuncture or internal medicine, not both.

> >

> >Marnae Ergil has explained all this previously on this forum,

> >including giving hours of education in each modality. IMO, to argue

> >that all students of CM in China are educated in both is a

> >misrepresentation that is either dangerously misinformed or

> >intentionally less than honest.

> >

> >Bob

> >

> > , " "

> ><alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > > Separation worked for China.

> > > >>>>Were do you get this. At least when i was there in 1985 you

> >learn both in china and then specialize.Its beyond my comprehension

> >that some in this so-called profession would advocate reduction in

> >scope of any kind.Never seen this anywhere else.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

It sounds to me like you both are saying the same thing only splitting hairs

over the amount of time learning other fields. This is a copycat of our

current WM system with hospitals, schools and specialists. I have seen

websites of Chinese programs that say what you both stated, Bob and Alon,

and I know that in order to make an informed referral you need to know what

others do like Alon and Bob both state. The Chinese have done an amazing

job of creating specialties for OM along with an integrated east-west merge.

Accomplishing two major issues that we see as impossible they did it.

Just goes to show you how limitations of imagination can stop physical

reality.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001

>

>

> Re: thirty years

>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 17:03:25 -0000

>

>

>Alon,

>

>At the Shanghai College of CM from 1982-86, students enrolled in one

>of three " colleges " or " divisions: " 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

>medicine, or 3) pharmacology. Students in divisions #1 and 2 only

>learned enough of each other's modality to make referrals, to speak

>knowledgably to each other, and to perform simple emergency

>treatments. Acupuncturists did not practice herbal medicine, and

>internal medical practitioners did not practice acupuncture.

>

>Further, go to any Chinese medical hospital even today. In the

>internal medicine, gynecology, pediatric, and dermatology departments,

>you will not see any acupuncture being performed or prescribed. In the

>acupuncture department, you will not see any internal medicine being

>prescribed, and, in the tuina department, you will not see either

>acupuncture being performed or internal herbal medicine being prescribed.

>

>In addition, CM journal articles (both RCTs and case histories) either

>deal with acupuncture or herbal medicine protocols, rarely both.

>Ninety-five times out of a hundred it is either one or the other. In

>fact, there are so few articles that deal with a combination of both

>that I tend to translate these as curiousities for our practitioners

>who routinely do both. Likewise, 95 out of 100 CM books either deal

>with acupuncture or internal medicine, not both.

>

>Marnae Ergil has explained all this previously on this forum,

>including giving hours of education in each modality. IMO, to argue

>that all students of CM in China are educated in both is a

>misrepresentation that is either dangerously misinformed or

>intentionally less than honest.

>

>Bob

>

> , " "

><alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > Separation worked for China.

> > >>>>Were do you get this. At least when i was there in 1985 you

>learn both in china and then specialize.Its beyond my comprehension

>that some in this so-called profession would advocate reduction in

>scope of any kind.Never seen this anywhere else.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Mike -

 

Again, if you spend any time at a college of CM in China looking at the

education of students you will see that they in fact those who study in the

Zhong Yao Xi spend very little time studying acupuncture and those that

study in the Zhen Jiu Xi spend very little time studying herbs. Upon

graduation, if they do not continue on for graduate training but are placed

in a hospital, most hospitals divide things up by medical specialty. Those

specialties that are considered Nei Ke (internal medicine) are staffed

primarily by graduates of the Zhong Yao Xi, and the practice is primarily

that of Chinese herbs. Acupuncture is generally reserved for situations

like Zhong Feng, pain, etc. There is in fact, not that much

crossover. Now, does this mean that graduates of programs in China who

come to this country to practice are " lacking in education " ? That

depends. I have certainly encountered many teachers who graduated from the

Zhen Jiu Xi who will readily admit that they did not really learn/study

herbs until they came to this country. On the other hand, others may have

supplemented their education in other ways in China - and, when I say that

they " spend very little time " that does not mean that they don't study it -

in fact, they may spend as many contact hours as we do in our programs, but

the emphasis on use and the opportunity for practice is much

less. Finally, remember that many of the practitioners who come to this

country are actually trained in colleges of Western medicine, where they

studied sufficient CM (usually just acupuncture) to be able to take the

NCCAOM exam and get licensed - a much easier route to employment than

taking the exam for foreign medical graduates and then trying to find a

place to do a residency.

 

Marnae

 

At 01:48 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote:

 

>The Chinese-trained practitioners and faculty that I have met (CA and MN)

>practice both acu and herbs. Are we saying that they are improperly trained

>or lacking in education to perform both?

>

>The system in China is very specialized much like WM. Don't students there

>get some training in all of these and then go on to specialize?

>

> >>Its beyond my comprehension

> > >that some in this so-called profession would advocate reduction in

> > >scope of any kind.

>

>Who is calling for a reduction? My quote prior to this was taken out of

>context. I was simply stating that in China they operate a system of

>specialization much like that of WM. Our profession, in the states,

>requires us to learn it all and hence my comment about integration. We

>practice it all, they tend to specialize in one area.

>Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

> >Marnae Ergil <marnae

> >

> >

> >Re: Re: thirty years

> >Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:00:32 -0500

> >

> >Thanks Bob -

> >

> >I didn't want to say it all again!

> >

> >Marnae

> >

> >At 12:03 PM 3/4/2005, you wrote:

> >

> >

> > >Alon,

> > >

> > >At the Shanghai College of CM from 1982-86, students enrolled in one

> > >of three " colleges " or " divisions: " 1) acupuncture-tuina, 2) internal

> > >medicine, or 3) pharmacology. Students in divisions #1 and 2 only

> > >learned enough of each other's modality to make referrals, to speak

> > >knowledgably to each other, and to perform simple emergency

> > >treatments. Acupuncturists did not practice herbal medicine, and

> > >internal medical practitioners did not practice acupuncture.

> > >

> > >Further, go to any Chinese medical hospital even today. In the

> > >internal medicine, gynecology, pediatric, and dermatology departments,

> > >you will not see any acupuncture being performed or prescribed. In the

> > >acupuncture department, you will not see any internal medicine being

> > >prescribed, and, in the tuina department, you will not see either

> > >acupuncture being performed or internal herbal medicine being prescribed.

> > >

> > >In addition, CM journal articles (both RCTs and case histories) either

> > >deal with acupuncture or herbal medicine protocols, rarely both.

> > >Ninety-five times out of a hundred it is either one or the other. In

> > >fact, there are so few articles that deal with a combination of both

> > >that I tend to translate these as curiousities for our practitioners

> > >who routinely do both. Likewise, 95 out of 100 CM books either deal

> > >with acupuncture or internal medicine, not both.

> > >

> > >Marnae Ergil has explained all this previously on this forum,

> > >including giving hours of education in each modality. IMO, to argue

> > >that all students of CM in China are educated in both is a

> > >misrepresentation that is either dangerously misinformed or

> > >intentionally less than honest.

> > >

> > >Bob

> > >

> > > , " "

> > ><alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > > > Separation worked for China.

> > > > >>>>Were do you get this. At least when i was there in 1985 you

> > >learn both in china and then specialize.Its beyond my comprehension

> > >that some in this so-called profession would advocate reduction in

> > >scope of any kind.Never seen this anywhere else.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Zhong Yao Xi spend very little time studying acupuncture

>>>What is very little time? Do they get basic theory, point location etc.