TPs and Acupoints

[Guest guest]

Phil,

 

actually the ancients did document and label these points;

they called them a-shi points, while some of them do overlap with channel

points.

 

There is a very comprehensive rebuttal of the flawed and biased study done

by Melzack and his colleagues

by Stephen Birch and Robert Felt (Understanding Acupuncture pgs. 158-159)

Please read it here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=E_tZEM_DxJ4C & pg=PA159 & lpg=PA159 & dq=trigger+poin\

ts+understanding+acupuncture+birch & source=web & ots=kDVB_1KX2S & sig=CCcejfdiDUo0chu\

asRbAUAEasC8 & hl=en & sa=X & oi=book_result & resnum=1 & ct=result#PPA158,M1

 

1. When they speak of a 71% correlation between acupoints and trigger

points, Melzack only studied 50 trigger points and found 35 acupoints to be

within 3 cm proximity to the trigger points. This is called an " extreme

allowance " by the authors... 3 cm is more than twice the area of a 2 cm

radius circle, which is that which is proposed for standardization of

acupoints according to the WHO....please read their article.

2. Furthermore, distal points for pain were excluded from the study.

" Melzack and his colleagues only considered correlations with locally

painful channel points. This is not only arbitrary, but almost perfectly

misrepresents what acupuncturists actually do. "

3. Of the 35 points that were grouped together with the 50 trigger points

studied, some of the points have " no reputation or traditional indication

for the treatment for pain. " (mean 20.2 points; 57.7%). " From

acupuncturists' viewpoint, only 4-9 of the 35 points (11-26%) on which

Melzack bases his conclusion are even among those that they would consider

for the treatment of pain. "

" The actual correlation level is only 23.4% with typically used points and

42.5% with the addition of points that are sometimes used. "

4. The implication from this study is that 71% of acupoints correlate to

trigger points, when in fact 35 points out of 361 channel points doesn't

even constitute 10% of the corpus of points, not including extra points.

" The more dramatic number was accomplished by reversing the expected

comparison, thus producing an impression that virtually the entire body of

acupuncture points had been correlated to trigger points " . Please read the

last 2 paragraphs on pg. 159.

 

This is a major issue that needs clarity, because as Birch and Felt state..

" Thus a study that has been widely quoted as discrediting traditional

acupuncture can be more fairly interpreted as evidence that Chinese

observers had already identified what we now call trigger points and defined

their function rather well. "

 

Respectfully,

K.

 

 

 

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM, < wrote:

 

> Hi Karen,

>

> > ... is it coincidence that a number of TP, particularly those along the

> > scapula, happen to be on acupuncture points? any theories on that

> > anyone? karen

>

> N

>

 

 

 

> o; it is not coincidence, IMO. Several authors have noted that TPs

> correspond in their location to known acupoints to 70-90% accuracy.

>

> I find it amazing that TCM practitioners did not document / report

> that many hundreds of years ago - probably because the significance

> of treating TPs is a 20th-century phenomenon arising from western

> medicine.

>

> Best regards,

>

>

> --

aka Mu bong Lim

Father of Bhakti

 

The Four Reliances:

Do not rely upon the individual, but rely upon the teaching.

As far as teachings go, do not rely upon the words alone, but rely upon the

meaning that underlies them.

Regarding the meaning, do not rely upon the provisional meaning alone, but

rely upon the definitive meaning.

And regarding the definitive meaning, do not rely upon ordinary

consciousness, but rely upon wisdom awareness.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My first presentation on CM was to the neuroscience and med school

faculty at the University of MI in 1982. I gave a lecture on the " Neural

Innervation of the Shu Points " . This work drew heavily on the trigger

point research my Janet Travell and others. Of great interest is a piece

published in Australia around 1948-1952 by Michael Good (I just can't

remember the year this was so long ago). In this paper he notes that he

has stopped injecting lidocain into the points and just dry needles

them. He also suggests that his preliminary data suggests that he's

seeing improvement on medical conditions and not just in the

musculature. He goes on to cite Einstein's theory of relativity and to

suggest that there is a huge frontier in the exploration of energy and

medicine. He doesn't mention acupuncture in his research.

 

Interestingly I was reading his paper on a bus in Ann Arbor, MI while in

grad school and a man sitting next to me named D'armond Good, who was a

researcher, laughed and mentioned to me that Michael Good was his " crazy

Uncle " and that everyone thought he was the " eccentric nut " in the family.

 

 

Anyway, Michael Good's Paper is one worth really getting a hold of as it

seems to indicate the rediscovery of CM. I'll note that not one of the

original researchers during that period ever mentioned being aware of CM

in their work.

 

In my own presentation I suggested using brain imaging to study the

effects of acupuncture points and the functional relationships of

" elements " , points, and brain regions.

 

It didn't go over to well, a riot broke out ( " your not using a degree

from our school to further acupuncture " , and I took a Masters degree

and went on to study CM.

 

-Regards, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

Interesting topic -- would really like to know if anyone can validate the idea

that Travell

had early contact with Japanese Shiatsu practitioners. She certainly had contact

with LAcs

in Los Angeles in the 80s and with Mark Seem in the early 90s. It can hardly be

believed

that trigger point " developers " had no knowledge of or contact with ideas of

pain relief

from Asian medicine practitioners.

 

I've been pretty engaged in Colorado concerning our state regulatory agency's

recent

expansion of the scope of Physical Therapist into acupuncture by needling

trigger points,

basing their theory on Western science and use of trigger points. I believe this

debate is

taking place in most Western cultures, in as handful of states in the US, and in

Europe. If

you want to read a synopsis of the politics, I refer you to the AAAOM Qi Unity

Report

article by PT Jan Dommerholt:

 

http://www.aaaomonline.info/qiunity/08/07/3a.html

and my response:

 

http://www.aaaomonline.info/qiunity/08/07/3b.html

 

What concerns me is drawing the line with western medical language on one side

and TCM

language on the other. Right now in Colorado, the use of laser acupuncture will

likely be

going to a rule hearing because the state regulatory agency appears to be

leaning towards

the idea that a western definition=western medicine and " energetic balance " =TCM.

western science and energetic balancing are being seen a mutually exclusive

terms. (I

don't mind that western science may not be seen as " balancing " , but I sure do

mind if

TCM can only be " balancing " and cannot integrate the innovations and

descriptions of

western science.) Case in point, the regulators in my state seem to believe

that since

lasers are a recent invention and are described in Western science terms, their

use for

acupuncture should belong to medical acupuncturists.

 

One of my colleagues found the following quote in Chapter 13 of the Huang Di Nei

Jing

Ling Shu. The chapter is a description of the muscle tendon channels, their

pathologies,

and treatments. Each of the channels is described first, then pathologies

given, and lastly

treatments. They list the same treatment method: " take the painful (spot) to be

the

point. " Can this be an early reference to what would later be called trigger

points? Reading

Chinese is not one of my areas of expertise, so I would appreciate any and all

feedback.

 

I think we as acupuncturists need to be quite careful to embrace all of our

traditions -

including new innovations in western science language. If we define what we do

as always

" balancing " according to 8 principles or 5 elements, or like the new Delaware

law,

stimulating channel points only, we might inadvertently " fix " our practice in a

construct

based on only ancient texts without being able to fully embrace modern

integration.

 

 

Valerie Hobbs

 

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " "

<

wrote:

>

> Hi Karen,

>

> > ... is it coincidence that a number of TP, particularly those along the

> > scapula, happen to be on acupuncture points? any theories on that

> > anyone? karen

>

> No; it is not coincidence, IMO. Several authors have noted that TPs

> correspond in their location to known acupoints to 70-90% accuracy.

>

> I find it amazing that TCM practitioners did not document / report

> that many hundreds of years ago - probably because the significance

> of treating TPs is a 20th-century phenomenon arising from western

> medicine.

>

> Best regards,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Karen,

 

> ... is it coincidence that a number of TP, particularly those along the

> scapula, happen to be on acupuncture points? any theories on that

> anyone? karen

 

No; it is not coincidence, IMO. Several authors have noted that TPs

correspond in their location to known acupoints to 70-90% accuracy.

 

I find it amazing that TCM practitioners did not document / report

that many hundreds of years ago - probably because the significance

of treating TPs is a 20th-century phenomenon arising from western

medicine.

 

Best regards,

 

[Guest guest]

Its very important to note that the criteria for an active trigger point is

different than the criteria we use to define and locate acu points. This is

important as we do not look for things like twitch response. The correlations,

which can be shown for several areas, are fairly superficial.