Amaro responds to needle depth

[Guest guest]

Hi John & All,

 

I agree that one need not stimulate acupoints strongly, or get powerful

Deqi, to get excellent results.

 

I also agree that AP Tx should be as gentle and pain-free as possible,

and that for many western patients, attempts to elicit strong Deqi can

greatly increase the incidence of needle-shock.

 

During the 11 years before my visit to Taiwan in 1985, I had few cases

of needle-shock. During that visit, I was told that it was very important to

elicit strong Deqi.

 

So, when I returned home, I stepped up my needling to get strong Deqi.

I learned a hard lesson! Irish patients do not tolerate strong Deqi well. I

had more needle-shock in the first few weeks after my return than I had

in the previous 11 years!

 

So I reverted to a gentle needling method, eliciting minimal Deqi. I still

do that today.

 

I also agree with John on the importance of selecting the correct point(s)

and allowing one's Qi energy to emanate through the needle and

expecting the quick, vibrant, healing for which acupuncture is famous.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

John Amaro wrote:

> I have needled GB21 probably daily for 34 years. This point is ranked

> by me as one of the highlight acupoints on the body for a host of

> conditions. I cannot say I've experienced a patient fainting more from

> this point than any other specific point. As most of us are aware, the

> reason a person faints with the administration of a slender acupuncture

> needle is purely emotional. If however the fainting is due to extreme

> trauma to an anatomical area of the body, it would appear that

> application would be considered malpractice.

>

> Having been trained in nine different Asian nations, I fortunately

> discovered years ago, It was not the depth of the needle which was

> significant as it was the alloy and structure of the handle, as the

> needle would produce both a mechanical effect as well as an electro

> magnetic one. It appears it totally depends where and by who one was

> trained as to the administration of needles. Those that perform deep

> needle insertion will often raise an eyebrow to those who are utilizing

> extremely superficial stimulation and often vice versa. The fact of

> the matter is they both are very effective. My point of view is why

> stimulate deeply and risk tissue trauma and fainting when the patient

> can achieve stellar clinical response with the proper point selection

> and minimal stimulation. In the 21st Century contemporary patient, pain

> is a major factor which should be eliminated from treatment as much as

> possible. Teh Chi can be achieved without extreme depth of

> penetration. It has been empirically shown that both non-invasive

> laser and electronic stimulation can produce dramatic clinical

> response. We must remember, the ancients did not have the advantage of

> electricity as that is a brand new discovery in the time frame of

> acupuncture application. The same is obviously true of laser. My

> recommendation, try a much more superficial approach to GB 21, allow

> your Qi energy to emanate through the needle and expect the quick,

> vibrant, healing which acupuncture is famous for. The main factor is

> to select the proper acupoint with extreme accuracy. John A. Amaro

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Tel: (H): +353-(0) or (M): +353-(0)

 

 

 

 

Ireland.

Tel: (W): +353-(0) or (M): +353-(0)

 

 

 

" Man who says it can't be done should not interrupt man doing it " -

Chinese Proverb

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Amaro:

 

Although there are varied responses to those in this list about the validity

of WM investigational tools as a gold standard, it might be interesting at

this point to consider the work done at Harvard University by Norman Kettner,

DC.

 

Kettner analyzed PET scans of patients who were needled by Chinese experts

in acupuncture and found that a distinct set of responses to DeQui vs pain. The

two responses were distinct. That is, needling which caused pain stimulated

a part of the brain different from the one stimulated by Dequi and

suppressed the central neural reaction observed with Dequi. The Dequi reaction

could

be seen to act on the part of the brain which releases the endorphin like

chemicals that we are all familiar with when we speak of central neural response

to acupuncture. While it has been a while since I read the study, I do

remember concluding that this really showed the difference between a good and

bad

needle technique.

 

Perhaps, John, you might talk to Norman the next time you are at Logan and

see if he couldn't run a trial with the laser you recommend, as well as the

less expensive LED device, and see what kind of central response each

generates.

 

Guy-Robert Porter

St. Louis