I did an internet search, both on Google and Yahoo, for other medical organizations... most of them were state, or country-oriented.

I did find a few others, but their membership numbers may overlap:

The Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) - 17,000 members American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) - 2,000 members American Holistic Medicine Association (AHMA) - membership not listed

So even though AMA represents less than one-third of physicians, it doesn't appear that any other organization has nearly as many members. Perhaps no one speaks for Western medicine.

Pattern Discrimination Isn't So Strange

Besides all distinct ontology (the study of what exists) like meridians and organ-systems, a fundamentally unique feature of CM (used in China to differentiate CM from WM) is pattern discrimination.

Different treatment for different symptom/sign patterns is not really that strange. Western docs don't give all patients same antihypertensive drugs, for example. It depends on patient, and there are specific groupings according to symptoms, signs, and other diagnoses. We do same thing - just different groupings.

Regardless, many Western docs look down their nose at pattern discrimination. Perhaps they don't think it's scientific enough? They don't see benefit. It's outside their paradigm.

Inequality in Credibility and Authority

Chinese medicine's biggest obstacle to making progress politically and in media is that MD's are seen as one true medical authority. They are experts on everything. Pure scientists don't get as much attention, nor do scholars, or Master's degree people. Politicians and journalists both have this perspective. Because of this, our objections (to actions of AMA, FDA, and drug companies against Chinese herbal medicine) go unheard. We are not seen as being as competent to assess dangers. Nor do they take Chinese docs very seriously. You have to either be an MD or affiliated with a big institution.

So, to summarize, you can't convince some people no matter what. Others will get behind Chinese medicine regardless. Those in middle will be swayed by media and their friends.

It's going to take some time for enough of us to have degrees, affiliations, and willingness to make statements loud enough to be heard above din of prevailing winds.

Because a review of multiple studies carries more weight than just one study. It's easier to convince people with a review.

The major issue with research reviews is that if studies were inadequate in first place, then review's conclusions will be wrong. Until methodology and study designs are improved, what's point?

Again, we suggest researchers review Chinese medicine literature. Rotchford advocates outcome studies rather than drug-style RCT's. In outcome studies, no placebo is used, but there is no satisfactory placebo for acupuncture research.

When acupuncture studies are done well, why aren't results always positive?

Rotchford says, "Dr. Naeser has shown that extent of CT demonstrated destruction does make a distinct difference in response to acupuncture. Why are Western studies equivocal when those from China and Japan so heavily support a role for acupuncture treatment in thousands of cases?

"First, acupuncture approach is different. In Orient, acupuncture is done daily to twice daily for maximum stimulation of nervous system. Various experts recommend treating 3 times weekly as a minimum; more would be better. "Second, Western studies use standard major Yang Ming and Shao Yang points. Chinese studies indicate that using scalp points alone or in addition to provide a stronger input. A newer approach, Xingnao Kaiqiao (A consciousness awakening), generated by Dr. Shi Xuemen and co workers, appears extremely attractive. They treat PC 6, GV 26, SP 6, BL 40, HT 1 (a bit distal to usually designated point), LU 5, and LI 4 in sequence each to point of tears (GV 26) and muscle jerking. In a series of 3200 patients, an essential cure is claimed in 58% and 90% effective improvement to point of reasonable self sufficiency. Other points are added for pseudobulbar palsy, where good results are reported in over 300 patients. Comparing this technique to traditional Yang points and to scalp acupuncture, they denote excellent results in 76% versus 36%. "I suggest a study such as done by Johansson's group, using Xingnao Kaiqiao, and with treatment given at least 5 days a week. Third, we must consider Qi transmission from healer to patient in any therapy, especially in acupuncture. I believe intent is essential; and intensity of interest and empathy might create a much improved healing. Considering this, background and training of involved acupuncturists in a study should be noted." - from his review of "Acupuncture For Dysphagia Following Stroke." (see link below)

So, people doing acupuncture research don't study Chinese medical acupuncture, but rather their own strange version of it - who knows where it comes from. I have no idea who's teaching them (are they teaching themselves?), or what books they are reading, if any. I'm not usually so bluntly critical of people's work, but as a body of work, I'd say that American acupuncture research has earned distinction of being mostly useless.