Reuse of AP needles

[Guest guest]

Hi All, & Matt,

 

Matt Bauer wrote:

> The reason I started replying to these post about fire needles and

> the larger question of sterilization methods was not because I

> advocate reusing needles but rather because of some of the

> over-the-top language some members of this list used in condemning

> autoclaving AP needles as a serious risk to the public. To the best

> of knowledge, there has never been a case of any

> cross-contamination from AP needles that were autoclaved according

> to accepted standards. It's great that the low cost of AP needles

> makes it a no-brainer for us to use disposable equipment, but it

> was this low cost that drove most (but not all) regulators to make

> disposable needles mandatory - not evidence of alarming health

> risks. Even in the days before disposable needles, AP enjoyed a

> wonderful safety record as compared to other health care

> professions whose equipment could cause cross-contamination. I

> agree that two wrongs do not make a right and that just because

> other health care professionals reuse equipment that occasionally

> cause cross-contamination does not mean we should also, but I just

> wanted to try to put into perspective that autoclaving AP needles

> is not inherently risky when compared to other healthcare fields -

> such as dentistry that we seem to accept without much critical

> thought. - Matt

 

Matt, I agree fully with your argument if the only factor was the real

medical risk. But that is NOT the only factor.

 

IMO, as you said, the statistical risk of cross-infection due to

reused AP needles after thorough cleansing + autoclaving is

extremely low. IMO, the risk much less than after autoclaving of,

say, dental drills, or hypodermic needles (with a lumen). However,

the MEDICAL risk is NOT my main point!

 

Like it or not, AP is " on the OUTSIDE " of mainstream ( " accepted " )

medicine. Like it or not, quackbuster-types seek and exploit every

little piece of mud/ammunition to sling at us.

 

Those who want to eliminate the use of AP harp on (rightly IMO),

about the paucity of high-quality AP research, and, thus, the

paucity of EBM-type validation, for AP. They highlight the growing

evidence that the specificity of AP points used, and the type of

physical stimuli applied are not very important in clinical outcomes.

They selectively highlight data that suggest that " real AP " is not

significantly superior to placebo- or random-type stimuli, etc.

 

My point is: why give our critics another stick with which to beat us

when very cheap single-use needles exist?

 

Our critics do not CARE a jot what happens in the far-flung villages

of the world! They have nothing to do with those villagers. Village

protocols do not impact on their grasp of " national authority " or

incomes from the practice of WM.

 

But the enemies of AP do care about (and are very worried by) the

escalating use of AP and other complementary medical methods in

the cities of the " first world " . The money spent annually on CAMs

is now a major threat to the incomes of " Big Pharma " , the mainline

WM professions, and to the WM clinics and hospitals that depend

on full waiting rooms, clinics and wards!

 

Widespread, and increasing, public usage of AP/CAM directly

threatens their status and incomes! And they will do all that they

can to bury their competitition (AP and other CAMs).

 

I have suggested many times in the past 2 years that National AP

Boards/Licensing Authotities should BAN needle re-use officially

and publicly, and should enforce that ban on its members.

 

Yes, that suggestioon is " over the top " if the only consideration is

the medical risk of cross-infection!! However, IMO, such a public

ban would be a very powerful Public Relations coup for the AP

professions in the west. It would remove one red-herring-criticism

from our " enemies " , and it would make the public look more

closely at how dentists & other WM professionals handle re-use of

THEIR instruments.

 

Best regards,

Phil

 

PS. Matt also referred to my mail on a possible risk from cross-

transmission of prion infectivity after autoclaving. I agree that that

risk is infinitesimal, but there is a risk. So why take it to save a few

cents?

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc, c/o 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "