Felix Mann's “Scientific Aspects of Acupuncture�

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

Felix Mann's book, " Scientific Aspects of Acupuncture " (72pp) is free on

WWW as a pdf file at http://www.felixmann.co.uk/Scientific_Acupunture.pdf

but there are a few typos in the file.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Wow, now this could be an interesting discussion.

 

There is little to be done to refute him based on

data since it will just become a maze of information

that could be followed in any direction, but perhaps

we can say some things about his experience and logic

versus ours. The following paragraph caught my

attention, since it is so basic to CM and his

experience is clearly so different from mine:

 

pg 25:

 

"

I find on the contrary that whatever is done, as

diagnosed on the pulse, the organ is brought nearer

normality. If for example the pulse in the position of

the heart is overactive (pulse full and strong) then

whichever needle technique one uses, whatever the

needle is made from and whichever point of the heart

meridian one uses, the effect is the same: namely that

the pulse becomes nearer that of a fine and weak

pulse. Likewise if the pulse had been underactive

(pulse fine and weak) and one had done exactly the

same as above, the pulse would have become stronger.

In other words the needle seems to exert a normalising

influence: sedating the overactive, and tonifying the

underactive; and if the doctor wishes it or not, he

cannot (except under a few rare conditions) do the

reverse.

"

 

He is talking about the " homeostatic " effect with

which we are all familiar, and I think we all know

that we can insert " wrong " needles often without

_great_ damage to the patient, but then, and this is

where I believe at least some of us diverge from Mr.

Mann, we are also aware that we _can_ cause people to

become too yang or too yin, too excess or too

deficient, based on needle insertion and

manipulation/intent.

So why does he not have this experience? My personal

assessment is that because Mr. Mann has, " a priori " ,

made a judgement based on what is real and what isn't,

he has ignored the possibility of qi entirely, gone

unschooled in the methods of qi accumulation,

refinement, and manipulation, and as a result relies

entirely on the physical placement of the needle

without intent, leading to entirely homeostatic

needling results. What a guy.

It is difficult to cause a non-homeostatic effect on

most points without having a good ability with qi

manipulation, but it can be done. I did it once purely

by accident, and do it otherwise on a semi-regular

basis when a non-homeostatic effect is warranted.

Intent is also used to encourage a greater or lesser

homeostatic effect.

 

He continues, same page:

"

This normalising influence could fit in with the way

the autonomic nervous system functions. It is

interesting, at least philosophically, that

overactivity and underactivity can be diagnosed, but

that the treatment does not differentiate the two.

"

 

In my opinion, he should only speak of his style of

acupuncture (we could call it " homeostatic

acupuncture " , or " lazy acupuncture " ) instead of

discussing acupuncture in general. It is clearly a

different style from what I practice. Well, except

when I'm really wiped out and don't have the energy to

enforce my intent and I just plug the needles in and

go put my head down in the other room, well, then I

admit I am lapsing into the " homeostatic " school of

thought.

 

And so on:

"

Whether or not overactivity and underactivity are

important from the point of view of Chinese

traditional herbal medicine I do not know. In their

theory it is important but perhaps not in reality.

"

 

Interesting guy.

 

Hugo

 

--- < wrote:

 

http://www.felixmann.co.uk/Scientific_Acupunture.pdf

 

 

 

 

_________

What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email

personality. Take the quiz at the Mail Championship.

http://uk.rd./evt=44106/*http://mail..net/uk

[Guest guest]

Mr. Ramiro,

 

This is interesting isn't it?!

 

Well, science is objective, but the irony of it all is that scientists

are not! That thought always puts a smile on my face

 

The thing is that scientists are frustrated that they can't prove

everything that happens and when something happens they can't prove,

it is soooo much easier to go into denial... let's go back in time...

What happened when, in the West, it was discovered that the earth was

not square and that it wasn't in the middle of the

solarsystem/universe?! People were actually killed for proposing such

monstrous, ludicrous ideas.....

 

Western Science is as much as a product of culture,

tradition and philosophy - a specific world view fostered in a

specific geographical region with inherent different values.

 

Western science relies on tools to measure things, Eastern science

relies on observation of phenomena and relations

 

Science based on measurement is still treading it's baby shoes, and as

time passes and machines that can measure stuff become more efficient,

more sensitive they will discover and prove that CM's theories are not

incorrect. Just take the recent posting with a link to a BBC

documentary that now " proved " that HeGu LI 4 a well known point for

releiving Qi stagnation by moving and strengthening Qi and Blood in

virtue of being the source point on the hand Yang Ming channel rich in

both Blood and Qi... well... low and behold... it BIG SURPRISE turned

off the center in the brain which registers pain or something like

that... They needed " proof " even though a freakin' heart operation was

performed with the only anastaetic being acupuncture...

 

Not all, but most scientist are bound a philosophy known as Scientific

Materialism that rose early in the history of Western science where

we entrusted our souls and spirituality to the Christian God and the

rest to science... it still works that way, so people like Mr. Mann

are everywhere and that's just how it is; they are followers of dogma

as we are like it or not. Our dogma is just a little more embracing

than the scientific dogma But we need science, I am a big fan of

Darwinism - Evolution - a thing that the ancient Chinese probably

couldn't have fathomed - Science will come around and prove that the

law's of nature as the ancient Chinese described them are the same

law's of nature that apply in the West... surprisingly

 

We shouldn't let ourselves scare! We should strive to know as much as

possible about the tradition we have devoted ourselves to and then

when science " strikes " we can, resting in ourselves focusing on our

DanTien, say: Hey we knew that why didn't you ask/listen? " Ie: Western

science; " When you take too much sodium you will excrete calcium

through processes in the kidneys and urinary bladder thus making you

more prone to loosing bonemass developing osteoporosis " - Think

kidneys rule bones, the salty flavor is related to the Kidneys, etc.

does that sound familiar?!

 

NB: Quantum physics is still considered a bastard, if even a child in

many circles of science....

 

Humbly,

 

Thomas Sorensen

Loving science, Living Oriental Medicine

 

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro

<subincor wrote:

>

> Wow, now this could be an interesting discussion.

>

> There is little to be done to refute him based on

> data since it will just become a maze of information

> that could be followed in any direction, but perhaps

> we can say some things about his experience and logic

> versus ours. The following paragraph caught my

> attention, since it is so basic to CM and his

> experience is clearly so different from mine:

>

> pg 25:

>

> "

> I find on the contrary that whatever is done, as

> diagnosed on the pulse, the organ is brought nearer

> normality. If for example the pulse in the position of

> the heart is overactive (pulse full and strong) then

> whichever needle technique one uses, whatever the

> needle is made from and whichever point of the heart

> meridian one uses, the effect is the same: namely that

> the pulse becomes nearer that of a fine and weak

> pulse. Likewise if the pulse had been underactive

> (pulse fine and weak) and one had done exactly the

> same as above, the pulse would have become stronger.

> In other words the needle seems to exert a normalising

> influence: sedating the overactive, and tonifying the

> underactive; and if the doctor wishes it or not, he

> cannot (except under a few rare conditions) do the

> reverse.

> "

>

> He is talking about the " homeostatic " effect with

> which we are all familiar, and I think we all know

> that we can insert " wrong " needles often without

> _great_ damage to the patient, but then, and this is

> where I believe at least some of us diverge from Mr.

> Mann, we are also aware that we _can_ cause people to

> become too yang or too yin, too excess or too

> deficient, based on needle insertion and

> manipulation/intent.

> So why does he not have this experience? My personal

> assessment is that because Mr. Mann has, " a priori " ,

> made a judgement based on what is real and what isn't,

> he has ignored the possibility of qi entirely, gone

> unschooled in the methods of qi accumulation,

> refinement, and manipulation, and as a result relies

> entirely on the physical placement of the needle

> without intent, leading to entirely homeostatic

> needling results. What a guy.

> It is difficult to cause a non-homeostatic effect on

> most points without having a good ability with qi

> manipulation, but it can be done. I did it once purely

> by accident, and do it otherwise on a semi-regular

> basis when a non-homeostatic effect is warranted.

> Intent is also used to encourage a greater or lesser

> homeostatic effect.

>

> He continues, same page:

> "

> This normalising influence could fit in with the way

> the autonomic nervous system functions. It is

> interesting, at least philosophically, that

> overactivity and underactivity can be diagnosed, but

> that the treatment does not differentiate the two.

> "

>

> In my opinion, he should only speak of his style of

> acupuncture (we could call it " homeostatic

> acupuncture " , or " lazy acupuncture " ) instead of

> discussing acupuncture in general. It is clearly a

> different style from what I practice. Well, except

> when I'm really wiped out and don't have the energy to

> enforce my intent and I just plug the needles in and

> go put my head down in the other room, well, then I

> admit I am lapsing into the " homeostatic " school of

> thought.

>

> And so on:

> "

> Whether or not overactivity and underactivity are

> important from the point of view of Chinese

> traditional herbal medicine I do not know. In their

> theory it is important but perhaps not in reality.

> "

>

> Interesting guy.

>

> Hugo

>

> --- < wrote:

>

> http://www.felixmann.co.uk/Scientific_Acupunture.pdf

>

>

>

>

> _________

> What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis

of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Mail Championship.

> http://uk.rd./evt=44106/*http://mail..net/uk

>

[Guest guest]

I did not finish up getting all the data in the booklet but 2 things

are coming uo very positively - 1) lots of data on animal experiments

are used for proving acupuncture 2)if you need to do acupuncture on

snakes - go the longitudianl way=relate yourself to the tissue oin

problem, acupuncture on the back-shu pts relate to the organ below.

Sagiv.

Chinese Medicine , " "

< wrote:

>

> Hi All,

>

> Felix Mann's book, " Scientific Aspects of Acupuncture " (72pp) is

free on

> WWW as a pdf file at

http://www.felixmann.co.uk/Scientific_Acupunture.pdf

> but there are a few typos in the file.

>

> Best regards,

>

>

>

>