qi


E-mail to a Friend | Printer Friendly Version | PDF Version

Poll Results for the following Question:

Do you believe it was appropriate for ACAOM to remove three of its commissioners by changing its bylaws?

Results:

Yes
86.3%
No
13.7%

Total Respondents: 1246

Comments:

Note: These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site.
They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling.


Anonymous
No This can lead to dictatorship

Anonymous
Yes It's interesting to read from the peanut gallery a very few of the comments praising Acupunture Today's article on ACAOM. This article is a muck raking piece based entirely on unreliable charges that doesn't meet even basic standards for investigative reporting. There is no way around this inescapable fact.

Certainly, those who praise the article have personal agendas to promote so their positions relative to the article are not a surprise in the least. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would be screaming bloody murder.

Anonymous
Yes The hate mail the you have received demonstrates the good work you have done to write the expose on ACAOM. They are very defensive, and without much substance. They were happy as long as you wrote borish postive articles about ACAOM, CCAOM, NCCAOM. But write one critical and accurate article? Oh, no...

Please find out more for us. Have you contacted the US Department of Education?

Anonymous
No It has taken along time for Acupuncture Today to do some investigative journalism, and it has only exposed the tip of an iceberg.

Having five commissioners secretly agree to remove the other three commissioners smells of foul play and dirty politics. Legal? Maybe. Ethical? Definitely not.

What else might be going on with ACAOM and its partner CCAOM?

thank you Acupuncture Today

Anonymous
Yes Acupuncture Today's May 2004 issue had a comment from the publisher regarding the new design for the paper.

To ensure that the design of your paper is more consistent with your new approach to reporting the news as exemplified by your article on ACAOM, I have another design suggestion. Send out your paper to Acupuncture Today's readers in rolls like Charmin and other brands of toilet paper.

This would ensure truth in labeling, and permit the paper to be put to good use.

Anonymous
Yes What a slimmy piece Acupuncture Today has written.

The only thing that will suffer from this is the profession's confidence and trust in being able to rely on Acupuncture Today for unbiased news regarding Oriental medicine.

Anonymous
Yes The Acupuncture Today article on ACAOM oozes with partisan sleaze! What kind of paper do you want to be, a responsible one or a tabloid rag???? You have not taken the responsible road on this. It is your reputation that will suffer.

Anonymous
Yes Is Acupuncture Today nuts? Groups like ACAOM are one of the reasons why the profession has credibility. Why would Acupuncture Today write such an article which can only damage the profession.

Anonymous
Yes Yes. ACAOM did great job to remove bad person from the group. thank you, thank you very much. Acupuncture and orient medicine has hope .

Anonymous
Yes I think that Acupuncture Today should change its name to reflect its new approach in reporting gossip rather than news.

Let me suggest.

National Acupuncture Inquirer
Acupuncture STAR Magazine
Anonymous
Yes Acupuncture Today's approach to this situation raises a number of serious questions about the paper's independence and ability to objectively report the news. I believe that the timing and content of this attack piece is no cooincidence.

First, Acupuncture Today burried AAOM's article urging that the profession reject the new National Oriental Medicine Accrediting Agency (NOMAA) in the back pages of the April edition of the paper. The AAOM's letter pointed out that NOMAA developed its standards and processes in secret without allowing groups to comment, then concealed its standards, and has consistently misled the profession about NOMAA.

Second, Acupuncture Today writes a PR "pump piece" which repeats the NOMAA party line that their standards were developed with "input from the profession" which is untrue. Of course, if Mr. Devitt checked his facts he would have discovered that virtually no state associations, regulators, etc.. were given any opportunity to provide input as the NOMAA standards were developed.

Third, then Acupuncture Today publishes a set of unreliable allegations against ACAOM made by past Commissioners who were asked to leave for misconduct and frames through inuendo the article in the most negative light possible.

Is this a cooincidence?? I think not. Is it any coincidence that Mr. Devitt has been observed taking public political positions on controversial subjects before the California Acupuncture Board? I think not. Just read the Board's meeting minutes.

Acupuncture Today should simply admit that their mission is not to report the news in an objective manner; instead their mission is to push certain political agendas. By acknowledging this, at least readers would understand that they need to take what they read in Acupuncture Today with a grain of salt.

Anonymous
No This was a power play by the Executive Director of ACAOM and the Chairman to silence Commissioners who found inadequacies in its operations. It is unfortunate that ACAOM continues to display its arrogance and lack of humility when challenged with its shortcomings. Our profession needs individuals at ACAOM who are honest, have integrity, are professional, and not individuals with their own personal agendas. ACAOM needs to implement the same fourteen essential requirements that it cites OM instituions on, to itself and publish the results to the community. It would not be granted candidacy.

rezen
No There is something known as do process, and in this case, with the few scattered pieces of information and historical background we have regrading this organization (ACAOM), I feel there was some just sense in questioning the happenings, which would otherwise not be made public.

The writers at AT might not be professional journalist, and this might be apparent in the the approach that was taken in reporting on this situtaion, but I bet we wouldn't be reading about it in the New York Times anytime soon. An it is important that we keep on top of the happenings within such important groups as ACAOM, setting the pace for us all.
Anonymous
Yes Using Acupuncture Today's new "standards" for publishing negative articles about other organizations, perhaps AAOM or another organization can "accuse" Acupuncture Today of misconduct. The accusation could be that Acupuncture Today is not actually an independent paper, but takes all its directions from another professional organization with certain extreme agendas and that the Executive Director from this organization determines or directly influences what Acupuncture Today may and may not publish. The accusation could also include the charge that the Acupuncture Today Publisher is a pedophile.

Using Acupuncture Today's apparent "new" standards for publishing articles, this would be a viable basis for AAOM or another organization to publish and widely disseminate an article on the topic, with a "juicy title" like "Acupuncture Today Accused of Being Controled by Others/Charges Publisher of being a Pedophile". Then this could be the basis for an on-line survey asking whether Acupuncture Today should, in fact, be an independent paper and whether the profession should continue to read a paper whose publisher may be a pedophile. And, it dosen't matter whether the allegations are totally bogus or not, or that the sources of the allegations are completely unreliable as in the case with ACAOM.
Using Acupuncture Today's new tabloid standard for publication, this would be considered appropriate for publication!!!

Just think about the implications of Acupuncture Today's new totally irresponsible, tabloid approach to journalism within our profession!!! Scary!!!

Anonymous
No I think AT is doing the right thing by printing the articles. I'm down here and would like to know who's running the show up there. What's going on up there will effect me down here. Get it together folk!

Anonymous
Yes Acupuncture Today's staff writer didn't check his facts before writing this. The suggestion that it may be improper to give a CEO primary authority over staff is one example. As someone who has served on non-profit boards, no Boards of Directors should have any authority over hiring or firing staff other than the CEO. In the non-profit world, proper protocol and practice demands that ultimate authority regarding an organization's administration be given to the CEO. It is inappropriate for any Board of Directors to assume this authority.

Another example is the comment in the article to the effect that 501(c)3's must supply certain financial information to those who request it. Although the writer attempts to imply that ACAOM may have not done this in violation of the law, what the staff writer failed to mention is that this disclosure requirement only relates to audits and tax filings, not budgets.

Anonymous
Yes It's pretty sad that Acupuncture Today has chosen to write an article and even do a survey not based on facts, but based on dubious allegations made by prior Commissioners who were tossed off ACAOM for misconduct. I believe that this is a first for Acupuncture Today, which raises serious questions as to Acupuncture Today's motives and whether the profession can trust them in the future to provide real news about the profession in a fair, balance and neutral manner.

The real story, a story that will never be told by Acupuncture Today, is why this was even deemed fit to print, why is it written in an attacking tone of inuendo more appropriate to the National Inquirer, and who put Acupuncture Today up to this.

It is pretty clear to me and many who have commented about this piece that this is a garden variety hatchet job against one of the key national organizations. One has to wonder from all this whose pocket Acupuncture Today is in.
Anonymous
No Have any of you considered, even for a moment, what this means if the article in Acupunture Today is true? We all know the people at the schools don't like ACAOM and how much they charge for site visits, etc. and all the extra charges they come up with. Maybe there's something to this after all.

Maybe it's time for a change at ACAOM. Start with Dort Bigg and just clean house.
kkathome@earthlink.net
No AS SOMEONE WHO USES ACUPUNCTURE TO
MAINTAIN HEALTH, THIS ACT MAKES ME THINK
THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOR
YEARS BASTARDIZED THE STANDARDS OF
DOCTORS BY CONTROLLING THE AMA, HAVE
TAKEN OVER THE ACAOM; THIS WOULD BE THE
PHARMACEUTICALS, OR THOSE ONLY
INTERESTED IN BUSINESS AND THE MAKING
OF MONEY FOR A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE
OF SOCIETY; THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO
KNOWLEDGE OF OR INTEREST IN HEALTH OR
HEALING OR THE PEOPLE THEY CLAIM TO
"SERVE". I SINCERELY HOPE THIS DOESN'T
HAPPEN IN ACUPUNCTURE.

Anonymous
Yes You have sunk to a new low - Acupuncture needs positive press, not your muck-raking rag tactics.

Anonymous
Yes California rag doesn't begin to describe what you have become - toilet paper would be more to the point.

Anonymous
Yes How about if all policies and changes to personnel and governance at Acupuncture Today are posted and subject to vote - what's the matter - turn about isn't fair play?

Anonymous
Yes It's their business - they have to run their own organization in the face of idiots like you writing articles worthy of William Randolph Hearst (if you are even well educated enough to know who he was).

Anonymous
Yes what's it to you?

Anonymous
No To the person who labeled Acupuncture Today a "California rag" that appeals to only a few people with some extreme views, let me point out a few things to you.

What were the other stories in the June issue?

There was an interview with Gene Bruno of the AAOM. Is the AAOM based in California? No. It's based in Washington, D.C. Does it represent the views of only a few people? No. It's the largest membership organization in the profession.

There was an article on the AOMNC. Is the AOMNC based in California? No. It's based in Florida, and the article talks about a class-action suit that could affect patients and practitioners ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

There was an article on tai chi, which is practiced by millions of people, including people OUTSIDE of California.

And there was an article on an exam issue in Minnesota. Is Minnesota in California? No.

Just this year alone, AT has published stories on AAOM, the Acupuncture Alliance, ACAOM, AOMA (which is in Austin, Texas), CCAOM, a law in Michigan, a conference in New Jersey, a reiki study in Washington state, the D.C. Acupuncture Society, the Maryland Institute of TCM, and reviewed several peer-reviewed studies, in addition to the stories on issues in California. To say that AT is biased and focused only on what goes on in California is, to put it mildly, extremely shortsighted.

As an aside, you may not be aware of this, but half of the acupuncturists in this country PRACTICE in California. Of course, there will be more stories on what happens there than in other states.

The arrogance and shortsightedness of some of the people who frequent this site never ceases to amaze me.
bob@bluepoppy.com
No In politics, which is, after all, what this is, the mere appearance of impropriety is just as damaging as impropriety itself.

Anonymous
Yes I cant believe Acupuncture Today has stooped this low in doing an article and even a survey on this issue.

The comment that I constantly hear that Acupuncture Today has become a California "rag" that promotes the extremist agendas of a very small few within the profession must be true.

This is the reason why folks should not trust what they read in Acupuncture Today.

Anonymous
Yes Why is AT doing an article and conducting a survey on the same subject????? This is the first time I have EVER seen an article written by AT based on "allegations" rather than anything remotely resembling statements of fact -- and with an unprecedented survey on the very same subject, this appears to be solely designed by Acupuncture Today to damage ACAOM's reputation.

I strongly suspect that someone or some group which "has it in for ACAOM" has put Acupuncture Today up to this and Acupuncture Today has willingly or unwittingly allowed itself to be manipulated into serving certain narrow political agendas that exist within the profession. This is pure "yellow journalism" and is something that I would expect to see on supermarket shelves rather than published by AT. Acupuncture Today clearly has showed its colors as serving narrow political agendas rather than reporting "REAL news" of interest to the profession in an objective and forthright manner.

No one can reach any conclusions from this article, as it is simply based on unsubstantiated charges made by individuals removed by ACAOM -- who obviously have "axes to grind." If the sources of the article cannot be deemed trustworthy or reliable, and since they cant, then the article itself is not reliable. Nor can anyone reasonably answer the question raised by this so-called "poll" as no one has any "detailed" information on WHY Commissioners were removed. If ACAOM is correct that individuals serving on its Board were acting unethically, inappropriately or in a manner that damages the organization (and I can state that "leaking allegations such as those AT has deemed fit to publish is inappropirate and constitutes reasonable grounds for removal in of itself), it is fair game to remove those individuals -- even by amending Bylaws.

I have a suggestion for Acupuncture Today based on reading all this. Adopt a new "motto" along the following lines "Inquiring Acupuncturists want to know." This would clearly represent AT's new Inquirer-like editorial practices which represents a new "low" in journalism within this profession.

My opinion of Acupuncture Today has just dropped through the floor.
newbie
No While the act of removal under certain guidelines is not an issue for any board, the issue of creating less stringent bylaws for commissioner removal is highly suspect of an undemocratic board. I have served as a board member of a medical clinic and found that while people do not sometimes get along you need to learn patience. After reading the story about legit questions that the organization is required to uphold (such as the open policy on financial statements according to 501 (c)(3)which makes it manditory and should not be an issue for dismissal of commissioners I believe there might be something the group is trying to hide. This type of behavior seems to happen when certain people are tempted by power, money or prestige and usually has nothing to do with the goals of the organization. An open and independent audit of the financial statements may be warranted and would definitely put this to rest. It would be sad but maybe the truth of fiscal mismanagment needs to come out. We have certainly seen enough of the pattern in the news and it needs to stop!

AT News Update
e-mail newsletter Subscribe Today

AT Deals & Events
e-mail newsletter Subscribe Today