RE: Needle size, etc.

[Guest guest]

It is a fascinating divergence of experience. Maybe patient populations are

somewhat self-selecting based on the word of mouth they hear and also

non-clinical criteria (reputation, charisma, chemistry, etc.), and this

allows some to accept a certain technique from one practitioner and others

to go elsewhere. Also, it could be that using big needles requires much more

practice to use without inducing pain and trauma than small ones. Or perhaps

some practitioners are more comfortable with a certain level of invasiveness

than others, which determines their proficiency with a given technique. It

is my sense, with nothing but anecdote to back it, granted, that most of the

techniques out there work, but it is matching the technique to the

practitioner that determines efficacy. I, for example, do craniosacral work

as well, and tend to have a very subtle approach with lots of perceiving (or

imagining, but I hope not) of Qi at the needle and on the channels (which is

not where I started at all - I began as hard-core TCM). I have treated many

patients who have gone elsewhere and gotten no luck. Go figure.

 

(As an aside, I remember one Chinese instructor (Dr. Cheng Xiao Ming) who

uses a 10 " 28g coiled needle for Crohns, inserting it deeply into the

abdomen and, supposedly, curling it around the intestines. I have never

tried it, and never will, but he claims great results, and happy patients.)

 

Benjamin Hawes, MAOM, Lic. Ac.,

 

CORTEZ FAMILY ACUPUNCTURE

1430 E. Main Street, Suite #4

Cortez, CO 81321

(970) 565-0230

 

 

>

> Message: 22

> Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:20:50 -0700 (PDT)

> Doc <Doc

> RE: TCM needling

>

> Hola Ben,

> I do agree that it seems that some of the published TCM info does not

> hold up in real life,of course i can not claim to have come from a

> standard TCM background. My point combinations come from either my

> lineage or my readings of Nei Jing / Nan Jing information.

> I routinely use 28 guage needles in my (thank G-d) very busy practice. I

> always seek and connect to the De Ch'i. I often stimulate the needles

> strongly and patients not only come back but bring their friends and

> families. My clinic patient load represents a wide range of typical

> Americans as well as a wide range of folks from the rest of our fair

> planet.

> In other words my experience is quite opposite of yours.

> Perhaps it is the difference in our locations or the longevity of our

> practices or just the way it happens.

> Quien sabe?

>

> Doc Rosen

>

>

> Benjamin Hawes <ben_laura wrote:

> I do not discount ideas of Chinese medicine, at all, when it comes to

> treating psychoemotional issues. I have had great success myself, using

> Chinese medicine - understood as medicine derived from the Chinese

> classics/texts and lineages - but less success using techniques belonging

> specifically to institutionalized TCM. In other words, the needling

> techniques scared away most of my patients, and the ones who stayed often

> got adverse reactions to the heavy-handed needling taught in my TCM

> needling

> course. Not until I switched to fine needles with minimum/no stimulation

> (with no classic De Qi perceived by the patient, just my own perception of

> " catching the fish " ) that I started to have good responses. Of course, if

> someone has a torn rotator cuff, I pull out the 2 " 30 gauge harpoons, but,

> in my humble, limited experience, and in the experience of many of my

> fellow

> practitioners, the " big hammer " approach of modern TCM is not conducive to

> positive results for anxious / sensitive American patients.

>

> Benjamin Hawes, MAOM, Lic. Ac.,

>

>

>