Needling ORDER and Method (BU v XIE v Neutral (Even) needling)

May 16, 2006

Hi All,

Some AP practitioners believe that acupoints MUST be needled in a

specific ORDER to obtain the best result.

I have seen no published evidence that the ORDER of point needling is

important. Does such evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed

journals? Where?

Similarly, classical practitioners believe that point Supplementation (in Xu

use Bu) or Dispersion (in Shi use Xie) is important.

I have seen no published evidence that the BU/XIE methods of point

needling are better or worse than neutral (even) needling. Does such

evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed journals? Where?

Best regards,

Phil

May 16, 2006

Chinese Medicine , " "

< wrote:

>

> Hi All,

>

> Some AP practitioners believe that acupoints MUST be needled in a

> specific ORDER to obtain the best result.

>

> I have seen no published evidence that the ORDER of point needling

is

> important. Does such evidence exist. Is it published in peer-

reviewed

> journals? Where?

>

> Similarly, classical practitioners believe that point

Supplementation (in Xu

> use Bu) or Dispersion (in Shi use Xie) is important.

>

> I have seen no published evidence that the BU/XIE methods of point

> needling are better or worse than neutral (even) needling. Does

such

> evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed journals? Where?

>

> Best regards,

> Phil

>

There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things.

But we continue treating patients with very good results despite

the " evidence. " The proof is in the proverbial pudding.

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

May 16, 2006

Hi Don, & All,

Don wrote:

> There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things.

> But we continue treating patients with very good results despite the

> " evidence. " The proof is in the proverbial pudding. Don Snow, DAOM,

> MPH, L.Ac.

A parable of Zhuangzi, says: One cannot speak to a frog in a well about the

sea, as he cannot see beyond his hole. One cannot speak to a summer fly

about the ice, as the fly knows only one season. One cannot speak about

Tao to a scholar, as he is walled in by his scholarliness. "

As practitioners, we all are products of our past - nation, culture, family,

school(s), teacher(s), personal study (reading, discussion with peers, etc),

and clinical experience.

Don, with respect, as practitioners we use many levels of " proof " to justify

our methods. Personal experiences (and good clinical results) are fine for

that purpose but they are useless as proof for sceptical medical colleagues,

uncommitted scientists or sincere students who want to COMPARE the

results of different methods.

Don, you are correct that:

> There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things ...

However, if we want to advance as a profession and argue the validity of

our methods (and results) with colleagues in other med / vet / healing

professions (or with politicians or policy-makers), we MUST be able to cite

some reputable published work in support of our methods.

That brings me back to my original mail:

> I have seen no published evidence that the ORDER of point needling is

> important. Does such evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed

> journals? Where?

> I have seen no published evidence that the BU/XIE methods of point

> needling are better or worse than neutral (even) needling. Does such

> evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed journals? Where?

In the absence of good research on those questions, the decision to use

them is based mainly on the school(s) / teacher(s) that one follows.

That poses several problems for me. Am I alone in thinking that way?

Best regards,

May 16, 2006

If the order of needling is not important then why are

the ancient texts written a certain way? Why are Li

Shi Zhen's protocols a certain way only? Why are the

Ghost points used in a specific protocol, 1st trinity,

2nd trinity etc? You think that a medicine that

describes 20+ needling techniques, which places an

onus on practioner intent, would ascribe anything,

specifically needling order to whimsy or to what is

closest to the acupuncturist's body as they are

working?

David Appleton L.Ac

--- < wrote:

> Hi Don, & All,

>

> Don wrote:

> > There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM

> can do many things.

> > But we continue treating patients with very good

> results despite the

> > " evidence. " The proof is in the proverbial

> pudding. Don Snow, DAOM,

> > MPH, L.Ac.

>

> A parable of Zhuangzi, says: One cannot speak to a

> frog in a well about the

> sea, as he cannot see beyond his hole. One cannot

> speak to a summer fly

> about the ice, as the fly knows only one season. One

> cannot speak about

> Tao to a scholar, as he is walled in by his

> scholarliness. "

>

> As practitioners, we all are products of our past -

> nation, culture, family,

> school(s), teacher(s), personal study (reading,

> discussion with peers, etc),

> and clinical experience.

>

> Don, with respect, as practitioners we use many

> levels of " proof " to justify

> our methods. Personal experiences (and good clinical

> results) are fine for

> that purpose but they are useless as proof for

> sceptical medical colleagues,

> uncommitted scientists or sincere students who want

> to COMPARE the

> results of different methods.

>

> Don, you are correct that:

> > There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM

> can do many things ...

>

> However, if we want to advance as a profession and

> argue the validity of

> our methods (and results) with colleagues in other

> med / vet / healing

> professions (or with politicians or policy-makers),

> we MUST be able to cite

> some reputable published work in support of our

> methods.

>

> That brings me back to my original mail:

> > I have seen no published evidence that the ORDER

> of point needling is

> > important. Does such evidence exist. Is it

> published in peer-reviewed

> > journals? Where?

>

> > I have seen no published evidence that the BU/XIE

> methods of point

> > needling are better or worse than neutral (even)

> needling. Does such

> > evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed

> journals? Where?

>

> In the absence of good research on those questions,

> the decision to use

> them is based mainly on the school(s) / teacher(s)

> that one follows.

>

> That poses several problems for me. Am I alone in

> thinking that way?

>

> Best regards,

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

May 16, 2006

Needling in order does have a significance, but then diagnosing by channel

is the most important thing. In Tung's Acupuncture, we do Dao Ma Zhen -

needling in succession along a channel and vary according to tissue depth,

always trying to stack the odds in our favor.

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD

chusauli

www.chusaulei.com

> " daomsnow " <don83407

>Chinese Medicine

> Re: Needling ORDER and Method (BU v XIE v Neutral (Even)

>needling)

>Tue, 16 May 2006 13:36:35 -0000

>

>Chinese Medicine , " "

>< wrote:

> >

> > Hi All,

> >

> > Some AP practitioners believe that acupoints MUST be needled in a

> > specific ORDER to obtain the best result.

> >

> > I have seen no published evidence that the ORDER of point needling

>is

> > important. Does such evidence exist. Is it published in peer-

>reviewed

> > journals? Where?

> >

> > Similarly, classical practitioners believe that point

>Supplementation (in Xu

> > use Bu) or Dispersion (in Shi use Xie) is important.

> >

> > I have seen no published evidence that the BU/XIE methods of point

> > needling are better or worse than neutral (even) needling. Does

>such

> > evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed journals? Where?

> >

> > Best regards,

> > Phil

> >

>There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things.

>But we continue treating patients with very good results despite

>the " evidence. " The proof is in the proverbial pudding.

>

>Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

_______________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

May 16, 2006

Phil,

You bring up a great point. Often we think that we follow a tradition and

the dogma behind it. We get stuck in " Sifu sez " mode. I don't believe in

that. I want to find out the source, and I want to know for myself if it is

dogma or truth.

Master Tung often stated, " Observe for yourself, then you will know. " Of

course, this may be skewed according to our beliefs. Many times, we believe

so much in our instructors, we become little clones and stop thinking.

Confucius said that when he points out 1 corner of a table, the student

should be able to point out the other 3. If the student could not, he would

refuse teaching him.

With the technology of the fMRI and Dr. Zang Hee Cho's research, we can see

the mechanism of acupuncture is to send a signal to the brain to regain

homeostasis. I believe Master Tung's Dao Ma Zhen technique to be a means to

send a stronger signal, as is the Bu and Xie methods of Acupuncture.

Of course, I hope our colleagues can discuss this further.

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD

chusauli

www.chusaulei.com

> " " <

>Chinese Medicine

> Re: Needling ORDER and Method (BU v XIE v Neutral (Even)

>needling)

>Tue, 16 May 2006 16:51:06 +0100

>

>Hi Don, & All,

>

>Don wrote:

> > There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things.

> > But we continue treating patients with very good results despite the

> > " evidence. " The proof is in the proverbial pudding. Don Snow, DAOM,

> > MPH, L.Ac.

>

>A parable of Zhuangzi, says: One cannot speak to a frog in a well about the

>sea, as he cannot see beyond his hole. One cannot speak to a summer fly

>about the ice, as the fly knows only one season. One cannot speak about

>Tao to a scholar, as he is walled in by his scholarliness. "

>

>As practitioners, we all are products of our past - nation, culture,

>family,

>school(s), teacher(s), personal study (reading, discussion with peers,

>etc),

>and clinical experience.

>

>Don, with respect, as practitioners we use many levels of " proof " to

>justify

>our methods. Personal experiences (and good clinical results) are fine for

>that purpose but they are useless as proof for sceptical medical

>colleagues,

>uncommitted scientists or sincere students who want to COMPARE the

>results of different methods.

>

>Don, you are correct that:

> > There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things ...

>

>However, if we want to advance as a profession and argue the validity of

>our methods (and results) with colleagues in other med / vet / healing

>professions (or with politicians or policy-makers), we MUST be able to cite

>some reputable published work in support of our methods.

>

>That brings me back to my original mail:

> > I have seen no published evidence that the ORDER of point needling is

> > important. Does such evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed

> > journals? Where?

>

> > I have seen no published evidence that the BU/XIE methods of point

> > needling are better or worse than neutral (even) needling. Does such

> > evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed journals? Where?

>

>In the absence of good research on those questions, the decision to use

>them is based mainly on the school(s) / teacher(s) that one follows.

>

> That poses several problems for me. Am I alone in thinking that way?

>

>Best regards,

>

May 16, 2006

Phil,

Being trained in science and engineering myself, I initially tried to stick to

whatever w/ RTC's supporting evidence only but realized soon that we are way

ahead of what can be proven collectively as of this time. Some of the

techniques can be scientifically proven to some extent; others are just beyond

my imagination for now.

For example, just take Bu/Xie techniques can be proven to make a difference

when treating acute inflammation of some sort, e.g., appendicitis, with a proper

design of the experiment.

Short of institutionalized funding, most of us practice based on the

accumulation of some personal experiences treating patients. If these

experiences teach us what gives better result we tend to use it more. Don't we

all do this?

This is just my 2 cents.

Mike L.

< wrote:

Hi Don, & All,

Don wrote:

> There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things.

> But we continue treating patients with very good results despite the

> " evidence. " The proof is in the proverbial pudding. Don Snow, DAOM,

> MPH, L.Ac.

A parable of Zhuangzi, says: One cannot speak to a frog in a well about the

sea, as he cannot see beyond his hole. One cannot speak to a summer fly

about the ice, as the fly knows only one season. One cannot speak about

Tao to a scholar, as he is walled in by his scholarliness. "

As practitioners, we all are products of our past - nation, culture, family,

school(s), teacher(s), personal study (reading, discussion with peers, etc),

and clinical experience.

Don, with respect, as practitioners we use many levels of " proof " to justify

our methods. Personal experiences (and good clinical results) are fine for

that purpose but they are useless as proof for sceptical medical colleagues,

uncommitted scientists or sincere students who want to COMPARE the

results of different methods.

Don, you are correct that:

> There are no RTC's supporting evidence that TCM can do many things ...

However, if we want to advance as a profession and argue the validity of

our methods (and results) with colleagues in other med / vet / healing

professions (or with politicians or policy-makers), we MUST be able to cite

some reputable published work in support of our methods.

That brings me back to my original mail:

> I have seen no published evidence that the ORDER of point needling is

> important. Does such evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed

> journals? Where?

> I have seen no published evidence that the BU/XIE methods of point

> needling are better or worse than neutral (even) needling. Does such

> evidence exist. Is it published in peer-reviewed journals? Where?

In the absence of good research on those questions, the decision to use

them is based mainly on the school(s) / teacher(s) that one follows.

That poses several problems for me. Am I alone in thinking that way?

Best regards,

May 16, 2006

----

05/16/06 17:51:48

Chinese Medicine

Re: Needling ORDER and Method (BU v XIE v Neutral (Even)

needling)

However, if we want to advance as a profession and argue the validity of

our methods (and results) with colleagues in other med / vet / healing

professions (or with politicians or policy-makers), we MUST be able to cite

some reputable published work in support of our methods.

>>>Coincidentally I was just reading a Chinese article on the treatment of

back pain in which the outcome was dependent on the needling technique. It

was published in The Shanghai Journal of AP & Moxibustion, Feb 2003, Vol. 22

No. 2 on page 48.

It is not a RCT, just a case report in which the author was trying to treat

a 65 yo patient that had suffered from back pain for over 30 years,

especially in the morning. The diagnosis was insufficiency of Qi and Blood,

and cold congealing. The author needle Waiguan TE5 with moxa on top of the

needle, but after two treatments there was no effect. The author then

changed his technique and used first a directional supplementing method and

then the so-called burning mountain fire hand method, with no added moxa,

and repeated the technique after 20 minutes. On the fourth visit the pain

had subsided and 6 months later still had not returned.

At this point I couldn't help searching wanfangdata for more articles on bu

xie fa. Some 30 articles came up, one of which was called " Effect of

Reinforcing and Reducing Methods by Lifting and Thrusting Needle in

Acupuncture on the Blood Serum SOD and MDA of Kidney-yang Deficiency Rabbits

.. The tests showed that both supplementing and draining method had a

significant effect on SOD and MDA, but that the effect of the reinforcing

method was greater (p<0.01) than the draining method (p<0.05).

Many of the articles deal with directional needling against or with the

course of the channels, and mother-child points.

Another interesting article was this one:Effect on Acu-Points Skin

Temperature of Healthy People with Reinforcing and Reducing by Lifting and

Thrusting.

It showed that the supplementing method raised skin temperature

significantly, and that effect was larger as needle retention time increased

with a peak at 10-15 minutes (p<0.001), and p<0.01 at 5 and 20 minutes.

Draining method had no significant effect on skin temperature.

Regards,

Tom.

May 17, 2006

Hi David

> If the order of needling is not important ...

I asked for evidence (other than from the original texts) that needling order

really IS important.

> ... then why are the ancient texts written a certain way?

Probably because the original writers BELIEVED that the order was

important.

We know that TCM had a significant basis in Shamanism/magic

(numerology, Yi-Intention, etc). If one believes (rightly or wrongly) that

something is necessary, one does it that way.

> Why are Li Shi Zhen's protocols a certain way only? Why are the Ghost

> points used in a specific protocol, 1st trinity, 2nd trinity etc?

See above. If one believes that one can detetch Ghost- / Demonic-

possession / attachment, it is also necessary to believe in the way one can /

must use to do that.

> You think that a medicine that describes 20+ needling techniques, which

> places an onus on practioner intent, would ascribe anything,

> specifically needling order to whimsy or to what is closest to the

> acupuncturist's body as they are working? David Appleton L.Ac

Today, many AP practitioners use no needles; indeed some claim that laser

or guasha is even more powerful than needling.

IMO, there is no one school or method of AP; it is highly flexible. IMO, AP

given by a trained professional (especially one trained in Shamanism) works

on many levels - spirit, psyche and soma. No two acupuncturists that I have

observed (whether treating humans or animals) do it exactly the same way.

It is highly individual to each practitioner. All hold certain concepts in

common, but may disagree on other concepts.

I am trying to get to the core importance of AP: Is it

(a) the POINTS used,

(b) the ORDER and METHODS USED at the same points, or

those points that is most important?

Assuming that the points chosen are relevant to the patient's problems, my

gut says © is the most important factor. But I am open to being shown to

be wrong in that.

Best regards,

May 17, 2006

I have many students that believe the practioners intention to be

important in acupuncture. However, I don't at all share that view.

If I treat someone and they or I MUST believe it (or intend it to

work), then we are not practicing medicine at all.

Let me explain. If you have, for instance, pheumonia from strep and

I give you amoxycillan. Do you or the patient have to believe that

it will work? Or will it work despite you intent of belief? Of

course you know the answer to that one.

Therefore, I posit that if I selected the correct point in an

acupuncture prescription and taught a monkey how to insert the needle

into that point, the result would be identical to that which a

trained acupuncturist would get. That is the result of a true

medicine. If one has to believe in it to work, then we are

practicing nothing but faith healing. And that is not what I

practice, nor do I believe it is what any of us practice. We

practice Oriental Medicine; a true medicine.

Respectfully,

Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, MSTOM, L.Ac.

In Chinese Medicine , " "

< wrote:

>

> Hi David

>

> > If the order of needling is not important ...

>

> I asked for evidence (other than from the original texts) that

needling order

> really IS important.

>

> > ... then why are the ancient texts written a certain way?

>

> Probably because the original writers BELIEVED that the order was

> important.

>

> We know that TCM had a significant basis in Shamanism/magic

> (numerology, Yi-Intention, etc). If one believes (rightly or

wrongly) that

> something is necessary, one does it that way.

>

> > Why are Li Shi Zhen's protocols a certain way only? Why are the

Ghost

> > points used in a specific protocol, 1st trinity, 2nd trinity etc?

>

> See above. If one believes that one can detetch Ghost- / Demonic-

> possession / attachment, it is also necessary to believe in the way

one can /

> must use to do that.

>

> > You think that a medicine that describes 20+ needling techniques,

which

> > places an onus on practioner intent, would ascribe anything,

> > specifically needling order to whimsy or to what is closest to the

> > acupuncturist's body as they are working? David Appleton L.Ac

>

> Today, many AP practitioners use no needles; indeed some claim that

laser

> or guasha is even more powerful than needling.

>

> IMO, there is no one school or method of AP; it is highly flexible.

IMO, AP

> given by a trained professional (especially one trained in

Shamanism) works

> on many levels - spirit, psyche and soma. No two acupuncturists

that I have

> observed (whether treating humans or animals) do it exactly the

same way.

> It is highly individual to each practitioner. All hold certain

concepts in

> common, but may disagree on other concepts.

>

> I am trying to get to the core importance of AP: Is it

> (a) the POINTS used,

> (b) the ORDER and METHODS USED at the same points, or

> © the THOUGHT/Yi/Intention/confidence used when concentrating on

> those points that is most important?

>

> Assuming that the points chosen are relevant to the patient's

problems, my

> gut says © is the most important factor. But I am open to being

shown to

> be wrong in that.

>

> Best regards,

>

May 17, 2006

Tue, 16 May 2006 16:51:06 +0100, " " < wrote:

> In the absence of good research on those questions, the decision to use

them is based mainly on the school(s) / teacher(s) that one follows.

That poses several problems for me. Am I alone in thinking that way?

and, Tue, 16 May 2006 09:20:32 -0700 (PDT) david

appleton <acuapple:

>If the order of needling is not important then

why are the ancient texts written a certain way?

Why are Li Shi Zhen's protocols a certain way

only? Why are the Ghost points used in a specific

protocol, 1st trinity, 2nd trinity etc? You think

that a medicine that describes 20+ needling

techniques, which places an onus on practioner

intent, would ascribe anything, specifically

needling order to whimsy or to what is closest to

the acupuncturist's body as they are working?

Taking off from Phil's " based … on the …

teacher(s) that one follows… " , and in line with

David's statement (and a later message from

Robert Chu), I have a vivid idea (from teachers

hints and my own subsequent experience) of how

specific order of needling is integral to

treatment. It has to do with process logic e.g.

first open this, to allow that to move, in a

certain direction, and perhaps balance with a

complementary action/channel at some polar

opposite location, etc. If one views the channel

systems (main, luo, sinew, divergent,

8-extraordinary) as different, layered dynamics,

there's always progression of needling to elicit

responses and guide them in patterns. It's almost

mechanical, or perhaps more algorithmic, like the

process of designing, implementing and debugging

a software system. But is fashioned uniquely to

the patient's momentary situation.

On the other hand, such treatments are particular

to the particular patient, on that particular

day. It's difficult to conceive of approaching

this kind of practice in the context of the RCT

(random-controlled-trial). You cannot construct a

large sample of identical patient situations, in

the sense of sophisticated classical CM diagnosis.

One can conceive, on yet another hand, of

scientific methodology that follows a large

number of such treatments (as block boxes, so to

speak), and compares the results, by some complex

measures, with those of other treatment styles

(e.g. standardized). Logically, this should be

possible. The logistics, however, in terms of

resources, funding, etc., are, currently, somewhat unlikely.

Another angle is seen in the large British study

on migraine HA, which was quite sophisticated

methodologically, but which did not prescribe

treatment details, but rather number of

treatments and time span and whatever the

(qualified) practitioners saw fit to do (the

block box approach). This study found results

statistically strong enough to recommend national

political health policy. (The parallel German

studies, which specified protocols, and also

found significant results, but confounded by the

protocols ( " real " or " sham/minimal " ) hamstrung

itself to the extent of not being able to make policy recommendations.)

The pharmacological treatment model, and its

assumption that the treated conditions are

normalized currently drive experimental

methodology. This is less intrinsically necessary

from a scientific viewpoint, and more an example

of the maxim: If your only tool is a hammer, than

everything you see looks like a nail.

May 17, 2006

Correction in last message:

" (as block boxes, so to speak) "

should read " black boxes " , and also again a couple of paragraphs below.

" Black box " is a technicql term, meaning you don't know what goes on

in side, but just see inputs and outputs.

May 17, 2006

Don,

I think you are missing the point. A monkey wouldn't give a patient any

confidence in their ability to treat illness. How could a monkey have

intention of curing their illness. The FACT is that intention and the

belief that a treatment will work applies to ALL medicine, Oriental Medicine

and Western Medicine. It might be hard to accept - and " conventional "

doctors find it particularly hard to accept, but belief that a treatment

will work plays a hugely significant role in the success or failure of any

treatment. Scientific studies have shown that broadly speaking almost 40%

of illnesses are curable by this mental intention alone (on the part of the

patient) and of the pharmaceuticals that have been proven to work

approximately 50% of their " curative " powers has to be attributed to this

mental belief. This is often disparagingly known as the placebo effect,

which is frequently misunderstood as a fake cure for an imagined illness.

The placebo effect is in fact the opposite, it's a real and proven cure for

a scientifically confirmed illness. Why this is the case is still a

complete mystery but there isn't anything wrong or illegitimate with

harnessing this powerful effect.

Kind regards

Dermot

-

" daomsnow " <don83407

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:18 AM

Re: Needling ORDER and Method (BU v XIE v Neutral (Even)

needling)

I have many students that believe the practioners intention to be

important in acupuncture. However, I don't at all share that view.

If I treat someone and they or I MUST believe it (or intend it to

work), then we are not practicing medicine at all.

Let me explain. If you have, for instance, pheumonia from strep and

I give you amoxycillan. Do you or the patient have to believe that

it will work? Or will it work despite you intent of belief? Of

course you know the answer to that one.

Therefore, I posit that if I selected the correct point in an

acupuncture prescription and taught a monkey how to insert the needle

into that point, the result would be identical to that which a

trained acupuncturist would get. That is the result of a true

medicine. If one has to believe in it to work, then we are

practicing nothing but faith healing. And that is not what I

practice, nor do I believe it is what any of us practice. We

practice Oriental Medicine; a true medicine.

Respectfully,

Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, MSTOM, L.Ac.

In Chinese Medicine , " "

< wrote:

>

> Hi David

>

> > If the order of needling is not important ...

>

> I asked for evidence (other than from the original texts) that

needling order

> really IS important.

>

> > ... then why are the ancient texts written a certain way?

>

> Probably because the original writers BELIEVED that the order was

> important.

>

> We know that TCM had a significant basis in Shamanism/magic

> (numerology, Yi-Intention, etc). If one believes (rightly or

wrongly) that

> something is necessary, one does it that way.

>

> > Why are Li Shi Zhen's protocols a certain way only? Why are the

Ghost

> > points used in a specific protocol, 1st trinity, 2nd trinity etc?

>

> See above. If one believes that one can detetch Ghost- / Demonic-

> possession / attachment, it is also necessary to believe in the way

one can /

> must use to do that.

>

> > You think that a medicine that describes 20+ needling techniques,

which

> > places an onus on practioner intent, would ascribe anything,

> > specifically needling order to whimsy or to what is closest to the

> > acupuncturist's body as they are working? David Appleton L.Ac

>

> Today, many AP practitioners use no needles; indeed some claim that

laser

> or guasha is even more powerful than needling.

>

> IMO, there is no one school or method of AP; it is highly flexible.

IMO, AP

> given by a trained professional (especially one trained in

Shamanism) works

> on many levels - spirit, psyche and soma. No two acupuncturists

that I have

> observed (whether treating humans or animals) do it exactly the

same way.

> It is highly individual to each practitioner. All hold certain

concepts in

> common, but may disagree on other concepts.

>

> I am trying to get to the core importance of AP: Is it

> (a) the POINTS used,

> (b) the ORDER and METHODS USED at the same points, or

> © the THOUGHT/Yi/Intention/confidence used when concentrating on

> those points that is most important?

>

> Assuming that the points chosen are relevant to the patient's

problems, my

> gut says © is the most important factor. But I am open to being

shown to

> be wrong in that.

>

> Best regards,

>

Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click,

http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145

and adjust

accordingly.

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

May 17, 2006

Phil- your points are well taken- I would love to see

the double blind study that quantifies Intention- as

per my teacher Jeffrey Yuen, Intention, which he calls

practioner cultivation, is all you need- according to

him the most cultivated can simply be in the presence

of the patient and heal them.

regards,

David

--- < wrote:

> Hi David

>

> > If the order of needling is not important ...

>

> I asked for evidence (other than from the original

> texts) that needling order

> really IS important.

>

> > ... then why are the ancient texts written a

> certain way?

>

> Probably because the original writers BELIEVED that

> the order was

> important.

>

> We know that TCM had a significant basis in

> Shamanism/magic

> (numerology, Yi-Intention, etc). If one believes

> (rightly or wrongly) that

> something is necessary, one does it that way.

>

> > Why are Li Shi Zhen's protocols a certain way

> only? Why are the Ghost

> > points used in a specific protocol, 1st trinity,

> 2nd trinity etc?

>

> See above. If one believes that one can detetch

> Ghost- / Demonic-

> possession / attachment, it is also necessary to

> believe in the way one can /

> must use to do that.

>

> > You think that a medicine that describes 20+

> needling techniques, which

> > places an onus on practioner intent, would ascribe

> anything,

> > specifically needling order to whimsy or to what

> is closest to the

> > acupuncturist's body as they are working? David

> Appleton L.Ac

>

> Today, many AP practitioners use no needles; indeed

> some claim that laser

> or guasha is even more powerful than needling.

>

> IMO, there is no one school or method of AP; it is

> highly flexible. IMO, AP

> given by a trained professional (especially one

> trained in Shamanism) works

> on many levels - spirit, psyche and soma. No two

> acupuncturists that I have

> observed (whether treating humans or animals) do it

> exactly the same way.

> It is highly individual to each practitioner. All

> hold certain concepts in

> common, but may disagree on other concepts.

>

> I am trying to get to the core importance of AP: Is

> it

> (a) the POINTS used,

> (b) the ORDER and METHODS USED at the same points,

> or

> © the THOUGHT/Yi/Intention/confidence used when

> concentrating on

> those points that is most important?

>

> Assuming that the points chosen are relevant to the

> patient's problems, my

> gut says © is the most important factor. But I am

> open to being shown to

> be wrong in that.

>

> Best regards,

>

May 17, 2006

You're absolutely right, placebo plays a big role in all medicines.

However, it is not what makes the medicine work when placebo is not

the cure. It is the medicine. It is not the intent or the belief.

The next time you get a bacterial infection, or Hepatitis, try " just

believing " and see where it gets you. I'll take the medicine thank

you.

Dr. Snow

Chinese Medicine , " Dermot

O'Connor " <dermot wrote:

>

> Don,

>

> I think you are missing the point. A monkey wouldn't give a

patient any

> confidence in their ability to treat illness. How could a monkey

have

> intention of curing their illness. The FACT is that intention and

the

> belief that a treatment will work applies to ALL medicine, Oriental

Medicine

> and Western Medicine. It might be hard to accept -

and " conventional "

> doctors find it particularly hard to accept, but belief that a

treatment

> will work plays a hugely significant role in the success or failure

of any

> treatment. Scientific studies have shown that broadly speaking

almost 40%

> of illnesses are curable by this mental intention alone (on the

part of the

> patient) and of the pharmaceuticals that have been proven to work

> approximately 50% of their " curative " powers has to be attributed

to this

> mental belief. This is often disparagingly known as the placebo

effect,

> which is frequently misunderstood as a fake cure for an imagined

illness.

> The placebo effect is in fact the opposite, it's a real and proven

cure for

> a scientifically confirmed illness. Why this is the case is still

a

> complete mystery but there isn't anything wrong or illegitimate

with

> harnessing this powerful effect.

>

> Kind regards

>

> Dermot

>

> -

> " daomsnow " <don83407

> <Chinese Medicine >

> Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:18 AM

> Re: Needling ORDER and Method (BU v XIE v Neutral

(Even)

> needling)

>

> I have many students that believe the practioners intention to be

> important in acupuncture. However, I don't at all share that view.

> If I treat someone and they or I MUST believe it (or intend it to

> work), then we are not practicing medicine at all.

>

> Let me explain. If you have, for instance, pheumonia from strep and

> I give you amoxycillan. Do you or the patient have to believe that

> it will work? Or will it work despite you intent of belief? Of

> course you know the answer to that one.

>

> Therefore, I posit that if I selected the correct point in an

> acupuncture prescription and taught a monkey how to insert the

needle

> into that point, the result would be identical to that which a

> trained acupuncturist would get. That is the result of a true

> medicine. If one has to believe in it to work, then we are

> practicing nothing but faith healing. And that is not what I

> practice, nor do I believe it is what any of us practice. We

> practice Oriental Medicine; a true medicine.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Dr. Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, MSTOM, L.Ac.

>

> In Chinese Medicine , " "

> <@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi David

> >

> > > If the order of needling is not important ...

> >

> > I asked for evidence (other than from the original texts) that

> needling order

> > really IS important.

> >

> > > ... then why are the ancient texts written a certain way?

> >

> > Probably because the original writers BELIEVED that the order was

> > important.

> >

> > We know that TCM had a significant basis in Shamanism/magic

> > (numerology, Yi-Intention, etc). If one believes (rightly or

> wrongly) that

> > something is necessary, one does it that way.

> >

> > > Why are Li Shi Zhen's protocols a certain way only? Why are the

> Ghost

> > > points used in a specific protocol, 1st trinity, 2nd trinity

etc?

> >

> > See above. If one believes that one can detetch Ghost- / Demonic-

> > possession / attachment, it is also necessary to believe in the

way

> one can /

> > must use to do that.

> >

> > > You think that a medicine that describes 20+ needling

techniques,

> which

> > > places an onus on practioner intent, would ascribe anything,

> > > specifically needling order to whimsy or to what is closest to

the

> > > acupuncturist's body as they are working? David Appleton L.Ac

> >

> > Today, many AP practitioners use no needles; indeed some claim

that

> laser

> > or guasha is even more powerful than needling.

> >

> > IMO, there is no one school or method of AP; it is highly

flexible.

> IMO, AP

> > given by a trained professional (especially one trained in

> Shamanism) works

> > on many levels - spirit, psyche and soma. No two acupuncturists

> that I have

> > observed (whether treating humans or animals) do it exactly the

> same way.

> > It is highly individual to each practitioner. All hold certain

> concepts in

> > common, but may disagree on other concepts.

> >

> > I am trying to get to the core importance of AP: Is it

> > (a) the POINTS used,

> > (b) the ORDER and METHODS USED at the same points, or

> > © the THOUGHT/Yi/Intention/confidence used when concentrating on

> > those points that is most important?

> >

> > Assuming that the points chosen are relevant to the patient's

> problems, my

> > gut says © is the most important factor. But I am open to being

> shown to

> > be wrong in that.

> >

> > Best regards,

> >

>

Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Chinese

Medicine Times

> http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

>

> Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click,

> http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145

>

> and

adjust

> accordingly.

>

> Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside

the group

> requires prior permission from the author.

>

> Please consider the environment and only print this message if

absolutely

> necessary.

>

May 17, 2006

The point is may be one needs to show a better clinical outcome then a monkey

inserting needles

Oakland, CA 94609

-

Dermot O'Connor

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:05 AM

Re: Re: Needling ORDER and Method (BU v XIE v Neutral (Even)