~~#00F:I comment to the quotes:~~
"In my opinion a speaker should be working with META-Health within a practice over at least 18-24 months and have embodiment which means that they have resolved some (2-3) health issues through use or application of META-Health and related methods."
~~#00F:To speak authentically, one doesn't need to have the theory at all, but to have a __story by experience__. Mostly, an own story. 
I still think we do not need "Speaker" as a title for certification, but should encourage people to DO (and that was not how it was like under Johannes' presidency). 
What is making people uncomfortable in speaking about META-Health (or GNM for that matter) is that another one crushes their confidence by claiming they be not "correct". But one who tells their own healing story ARE inspiring others and making them curious, and that's what we want! I rather prefer practitioners finding a mentor they trust, for support and critique. Let them develop!
The __demos__ for which one must be competent, aren't done usually in an introductory storytelling, but in a __Foundation Course__.~~

"In this way the master trainers represent and uphold IMMA standards and are responsible for ensuring the competency and qualification of all the levels of people who enrolled with them
This in my opinion is not the job for the certification committee or board as their role should be less tactical or operational more steering the IMMA Ship towards a brighter future by devising more intelligent strategies, systems, solutions and policies and inspiring the community "
~~#00F:You are referring to MTs reviewing their students' studies, which has been that way and wasn't altered now. But as the thread is about Trainers, they don't necessarily come from a certain course or MT. This is what Thorsten is referring to - who does the work?~~

~~#00F:Thing here is, when we want scientific value we need peer review, not only one MT checking the congruence with the concept. There should be __signatures__ from who read and approved or commented a case. I like the idea of a researcher branch in M-H, and a Researcher can be a __Practitioner who is able to work with the wiki__ and to ask clarifying questions to cases, or an academic who evaluates them - they should work in groups. In the submission form we should have the item "history" to be filled out with what lead to the process documented. That way, comparison gets possible. The wiki gives us the opportunity to openly discuss cases. IMMA has never before invited research based on our collected material, but this is what we should aim for now, IMO~~

"So we would need to educate all master trainers so they can educate their student practitioners etc.."
~~#00F:Welcome to try to educate the MTs... many don't even take the time to read, much less to answer, or appear to meetings, from my experience. Territorial thing? 
What we need to accomplish IMHO is that M-H students who become IMMA members (which should be all students) are included in the community and encouraged to interact there, it's therefore we have forums to meet global competence and support in analysis and therapy, besides the more personal bond with their MT or faculty.~~

~~#00F:Please let's discuss MPE further in another thread...

Cheers,
Kora~~