Amaro responds: Amaro responds to needle depth

[Guest guest]

Dear Alon:

Apparently you haven't quite grasped the concept of " The frog in the well

knows not of the great ocean " . It is quite apparent your current level of

education at this phase of your professional development is the belief that

one must cause " tissue damage " in order to stabilize a vertebrae. Thank God

the Chiropractic profession did not buy into that one otherwise the

profession would have died out 80 years ago. I am not sure it is wise to

instill in the youth of the acupuncture profession that your personal

viewpoint on creating " tissue damage " for vertebral stabilization is

undeniable universal principle.

As Matt suggested earlier, soft laser is totally altering the thought

process of having to create deep, traumatic tissue damage in order to effect

the vertebral motor unit. Actually, the " tissue damage " concept has never

been universally scientifically accepted. It only appears in select groups

of practitioners. In my early years in clinical practice I was an advocate

of the tissue damage theory. As I matured in practice,and utilized other

modalities I was forced to change my previously held opinion. I have

personally used laser in my clinic since 1973 which is why after 32 years I

no longer feel the need to destroy tissue to achieve a positive vertebral

stabilization effect. I realize it can be accomplished with subtle energy

as emitted through a 632.8nm HeNe laser or a 50mw 635nm cold laser. The

studies in Austria, Germany, South Africa, Israel, The United Kingdom and

Australia all confirm the findings. However, the 535nm green laser is

currently holding more promise than all of the other lasers combined,

however the jury is still out on the clinical outcome trials.

John A. Amaro D.C., L.Ac., Dipl.Ac., FIAMA

President: International Academy of Medical Acupuncture Inc.

----

 

Chinese Medicine

Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01:30 PM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Re: Amaro responds to needle depth

 

I am not sure exactly where or why you have become so centered and

argumentative on the concept of " stabilization of a vertebral segment " when

in fact I simply discussed the light needle stimulation of GB-21.

>>>>>>>>

John

It looked to me like you were writing beyond GB-21 in your post and it

looked like you said in the 21st century there in no reason to cause tissue

damage. That is all i wrote about, no personal attack in any way shape or

form. Here is what you wrote.... " Having been trained in nine different Asian

nations, I fortunately

discovered years ago, .....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. "

 

Since i use both light and heavy techniques i know that for example for

vertebral instability you need heavy techniques and must cause tissue damage

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I realize it can be accomplished with subtle energy

as emitted through a 632.8nm HeNe laser or a 50mw 635nm cold laser. The

studies in Austria, Germany, South Africa, Israel, The United Kingdom and

Australia all confirm the findings.

>>>>>>

Please quote a single study that evaluated segmental instability treated by

laser or any other non-invasive methods. When i say segmental instability in

mean true instability.

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609