Adverse effects after AP at LI4 Hegu & Paradigms of evidence

July 25, 2003

Hi All, and Hi Richard & Vanessa,

Re earlier mails from other colleagues reporting fairly serious side

effects after needling of LI04, Vanessa wrote:

> ...If a blind [person] can ... master [safe and effective needling

> techniques], that says a lot about seeing and so-called seeing,

> practicing the real thing or so-called practicing it. ...I saw it

> done a lot by many so-called oriental medicine practitioners and

> their knowledge was as thick [Phil reads that as flimsy] as the

> diploma paper on their wall...

Richard replied:

> Then there is the lack of sensitivity training ...fostered because

> too many of the schools teach the students to pass a test as

> opposed to really teaching the art. The comparison here can be

> shown by one of the famous Japanese blind acupuncturists who ONLY

> used right side LI04 and could affect anything in the body....just

> through that ONE point. That is the range of sensitivity from

> almost zero to almost infinity...so-to-speak.

This is a most interesting thread, with profound implications! It ties

in nicely with a current thread on CHA [Paradigms of evidence and

on molecular mechanisms of CM].

Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

> ....I would reject double blind studies with CM treatment

> principles regarding WM disease states since CM is not working

> with molecular mechanisms in the patient, nor in the treatment

> model

Alon replied:

> Why then [do] we see treatment of western diseases with CM all

> over the literature? I totally reject your statement above. What

> we need is to have studies that allow CM all the freedom it needs

> within it own paradigm but at the same time, if it can not change

> the course of biomedical defined disease than CM will have no

> future. If I can't see blood glucose drop I do not care how you

> frame the treatment of diabetes in CM. Alon

Alon, I agree 100%. The best medicine [and IMO there is only ONE

medicine, as all things are ONE in the end] works on many levels

simultaneously - the material and immaterial/energetic; the

somatic/psychological/spiritual, etc. If ANY modality [AP, CHM,

homeopathy, spinal manipulation, Qi Broadcast, or insulin therapy]

claims to treat DM, it SHOULD be able to normalise blood glucose

levels in many affected subjects.

However, I also agree with , who wrote:

> ... in many cases, we won't be able to reduce glucose levels.

> However, CM can treat peripheral neurapthies, impotence, blood

> circulation problems, blurry vision and other aspects of diabetes

> effectively. ... I have a problem with CM trying to do something

> that WM does more efficiently, and ending up being second-rate at

> it. CM will target the patient in a different way, and this is

> truly 'complimentary'.

The published literature on AP and CHM has multiple examples of

where the applied treatment did not seem to normalise one or more

signs or clinical path [blood] indices, BUT had marked beneficial

effects on OTHER S & Ss, such as sleep patterns, general well-

being, emotional stability, etc.

Re adverse effects of needling LI04: In 30 years of AP, I cannot

remember having any serious adverse reaction from needling LI04,

except needle-shock in a few very sensitive human reactors. That

is easy to correct and is often indicative of a good outcome.

I have heard from different sources that some Masters, especially

in China and Japan, use VERY FEW points in their repertoire. As

Richard said, they can use the SAME point for most clinical

conditions.

What is going on here? Assuming that Masters really can elicit a

huge range of responses from needling a single site, IMO, there are

two main possibilities, i.e. that:

(a) The HOLOGRAM PRINCIPLE really exists in AP. In that

principle, the TINIEST piece of the hologram contains the picture of

the WHOLE, i.e. the microcosm is related to (and influences) the

macrocosm.

This principle would explain the clinical success of microsystems

of AP, such as Ear-, Nose-, Scalp-, Face-, Forehead-, Hand-, and

Foot- Zone AP, as well as ECIWO- and KHA- (Korean

Hand/Metacarpal-) AP.

The HOLOGRAM PRINCIPLE of AP has astonishing and profound

Implications, because it means that any ONE CELL (not to

mention a " nest of cells " around an acupoint) is linked energetically

to the whole body.

Thus, if one were sensitive enough [i.e. by having a highly honed

6th sense] to place the needle in the correct area of the cell, or

nest of cells, one can influence ANY part of the body [and its

functions] at will! [Will = Yi = Intent; see Yi below; the two

principles are intertwined!]

Indeed, the HOLOGRAM theory predicts that single electrons, or

even smaller subatomic particles, could be harnessed in that way.

This is mind-blowing stuff, the very core of energetic medicine!

(b) It may be a manifestation of the principle of Yi [intent/Intuition,

as in the LIKEM Principle], whereby it does not matter WHERE the

Master inserts the needle [or does NOT insert it!] if the Yi is

harnessed to a high degree of sensitivity [receiving info] and

telekinesis [sending info - sending by Qigong].

Sci-Fi addicts, eat your hearts out! You are in the halfpenny place

in comparison to this concept. Ah! I like this art-science a lot, and

wish that I could hone my Yi in that way!

wrote:

> ... [sometimes] we can't treat/cure the 'disease' , but can just

> treat the symptoms ... this is a huge strength ... but if we did

> that for every disease ...we are second rate, clean-up docs...

> maybe this is our destiny. But ... in China this is not their

> goal. Last weekend, I spent time looking at all his published

> materials with a CM doc from China. The research and treatments

> were relevant here, b/c for the most part they were all 'treating'

> real (western) diseases. Maybe it is not always about a complete

> cure, but let's say we could show that with pattern differentiation

> we can keep viral loads down longer than the current WM approach.

> Then we will ave something ... but even with let's say peripheral

> neuropathies ... if ... this symptom of DM can be alleviated more

> efficiently than with WM, with less side- effects, then this is

> just as powerful. It is one thing to have proof, and another so

> just say we treat something… We can say we treat anything right?

> And have you ever met am CM doc that doesn't [claim] great success?

> THIS IS WHY FORMAL STUDIES ARE NEEDED…

Agreed. We NEED independent high-quality scientific and clinical

research to validate complementary claims objectively. But that is

not enough! It must be of such a quality that it can be published in

the international peer-reviewed journals and abstracting services.

Only then will CAM come in from the cold to the centre of

mainstream medicine.

Ken Rose added:

> So, to whose science shall we seek to conform? Today's,

> tomorrow's, yesterday's? Don't forget that the whole basis of RCT,

> i.e., statistical inference, is in and of itself a kind of archaic

> artifact of the 19th century that is deeply rooted in a highly

> culture-bound worldview that, truth be told, has no more claim on

> being " real " or " authentic " (and therefore credible and

> believable) than more or less any other.

A most important point! BEFORE EITHER SIDE goes on its merry

way to conduct is own half-assed research in CAM, WM and CAM

researchers & clinicians must reach agreement on the research

design and protopols acceptible to BOTH sides!

Without confirmatory evidence THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO

WM/conventional scientists, CAM practitioners - whatever their

modalities and clinical expertise - will remain OUTSIDERS on the

fringes of mainstream medicine.

But can this integration of CAM and WM ever be attained? Several

people [ Yehuda,and others] have pointed out that each

scientific paradigm has its own " laws " and realities.

Simon King wrote:

> If CM is going to get anywhere (albeit in a changed form) it has to

> get past this hobbity backwater. Simon

replied:

> How will CM be changed, and who will do the changing? Don't

> expect it will be CM that does the changing. Is the only

> 'progress' to be a subset of biomedicine? Just asking.

Ze'v has probably has hit the nail on the head - and driven it out of

sight!

For CM, read CAM! Change is a fact, but resistance to change is

also a fact. Though many on these lists yearn for a New Medicine

that integrates the best from all traditions, the probability is that no

side will change much in the near future. IMO, the advent of a truly

Integrated Medicine could be hundreds, if not thousands, of years

away.

Ah well! I won't hold my breath waiting for it. Meanwhile, regardless

of external opinions as to the value of our therapies, or the validity

of our personal beliefs, each of us will do what we do best, and

believe what we believe deeply.

Slainte/Gezondheit/Shalom to all,

Best regards,

WORK : Teagasc Staff Development Unit, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

WWW :

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

Email: <

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

July 25, 2003

, " "

<@e...> wrote:

> For CM, read CAM! Change is a fact, but resistance to change is

> also a fact. Though many on these lists yearn for a New Medicine

> that integrates the best from all traditions, the probability is

that no

> side will change much in the near future. IMO, the advent of a

truly

> Integrated Medicine could be hundreds, if not thousands, of years

> away.

>

But hasn't CM in China changed dramatically (as mentioned before, for

better or worse), but they incorporate both paradigms... or am I

missing something?

Phil you said something interesting.. w/o research then in the

publics eye or CAM organizations, we are no different than NAET,

dowsers, reiki healers, angel channelers (intuitive healers) etc...

Hey there are channeling traditions or energy working traditions that

go bacK 1000'S of years, just like TCM. What is the difference here,

are they are all equal? Can they all be reproduced by anyone who

trains in the tradition?

-Jason

July 25, 2003