Misrepresentation in the Media: Telling the AOM Story

By Douglas Newton

Where might you encounter misrepresentation of AOM? Pick up a newspaper or go online these days, and you are likely to find articles about herbal medicine, acupuncture, and holistic medicine that mis-state facts, blur lines, proffer out-of-line arguments, or violate the spirit of this medicine as you know it. These articles represent the most broadly exposed public consumption of AOM information.

Consider this:

“If you are interested in acupuncture, ask your doctor about it. Healthcare practitioners can be a resource for referrals to acupuncturists. More medical doctors, including neurologists, anesthesiologists, and specialists in physical medicine, are becoming trained in acupuncture.”

(Source: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/10/geezer038.html)

The article referenced above also suggests that over 10,000 acupuncturists practice in the U.S. We know that this asserted figure represents less that half the actual number of AOM practitioners. And why should the interested public ask a doctor about acupuncture instead of going directly to a licensed acupuncturist?

Here is another sampling:

“This trial is particularly interesting because osteoarthritis of the knee is the one thing that is always cited as a triumph for acupuncture. It is common to hear people talk about acupuncture as though it were the acceptable, or even accepted, face of alternative medicine. Perhaps that is because it is not so obviously preposterous as homeopathy. Sticking a needle into you obviously produces a signal in the brain. That is just sensory physiology. But the evidence that this produces any real benefit for patients is, in fact, almost thin as for homeopathy. This paper seems to have been done very well. It is another nail in the coffin of needle quacks.”

(Source: http://dcscience.net/?p=45)

It is inaccurate and often slanderous to present acupuncture in this way. Insults like this could and should be ignored—were they not influencing the public’s sense of AOM validity. I argue that AOM practitioners can ill afford to remain aloof.

As you can see, the existence of attacks on AOM in the media is not speculation but a real presence for whomever chooses to read articles of this nature that are identified through Google or Yahoo Alerts. Where is this misrepresentation found? It is throughout the internet blogosphere. Who is writing this information? The internet has changed the shape of the media, affording communication to a broader range of writers, expanding far beyond conventional journalism. Bloggers on these topics abound. As such, a search for the words “acupuncture,” “Oriental medicine,” “health care,” “alternative medicine,” or “herbal medicine” yields a wide variety of articles and blogs in Google (or Yahoo) Alerts—everything from professional research journals to tabloid articles to outrageous claims. The authorship varies greatly according to this broad range of sources.

Whatever the source, these articles collectively tell a story to the public--and the terms of that story may not necessarily represent the facts that present a clear understanding of AOM. Some articles, like the one cited above, attack all healing modalities as quackery, or seek to associate AOM with all other CAM modalities, casting aspersions on anything that would encroach on allopathic medicine. Still other articles mis-state the roots of acupuncture or assert a lack of scientific proof for AOM.

When these falsehoods are presented to acupuncturists like you, please articulate your arguments to the contrary; let these arguments surface through your educational experience as practitioners, through specific studies you know about, or through direct observations in the clinic. Some of you have conducted research in the field that points not only to the basic existence of channels and qi but also to tangible ways this can be measured or understood. These insights allow us to help you craft statements that can clarify an article and to push back against claims that don’t quite make sense. Are you writing articles like this to contribute your voice to the field?

On that note, I encourage all of you to subscribe to the Alerts I mentioned and to get into the conversation. Unlike within the cultures of many Asian countries, we cannot assume that AOM occupies an intrinsic foundation in the U.S. Despite a recent surge in popularity, in cultural terms this medicine is still nascent, still in its beginning stages of recognition. In light of this, we need all of you to contribute your time, energy, and voices to this larger, ongoing conversation. The public will not absorb the gestalt of AOM without a prolonged campaign that places AOM on the map of popular awareness. Success stories, carefully written public statements, and AOM research do alter perceptions and collectively forge the proper infrastructure for the AOM profession. So we have reason to suspect that our efforts will have a payoff—one that supports the AOM profession’s overall development.

Consider the statement the AAAOM made regarding some misleading references in US News & World Report:

AAAOM's response to US News & World Report article

As AAAOM President Martin Herbkersman shows in the above statement, we can work together to assert the proper professional voice that the public deserves. You have a right to be heard, and I’m here to help you in any way I can.

dnewton@aaaomonline.org
866-455-7999

Look to future editions of The Qi-Unity Report for an article furnishing examples on how to write an effective rebuttal.