ghosts into hygiene

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

This is not about ghosts, but, since you mentioned Chinese herbs used

for hygiene purposes, have you checked out Blue Poppy Herbs' new line

of Chinese herbal soaps, shampoo, body lotion, massage and bath oils,

and lip balms? I've been playing with these kinds of external apps for

almost 30 years.

 

One of the interesting but commonly misunderstood aspects of this use

of Chinese meds is that you can't necessarily apply a med that is

taken internally and expect it to do the same things externally. As

the compilers of Zhong Yi Mei Rong Da Chuan (A Compendium of Chinese

Medicine Cosmetology) make clear, there is a certain group of herbs

that are used over and over and over again in external hygiene and

beautification formulas, a kind of cosmetology materia medica. These

are mostly acrid, warm exterior-resolvers, the single most important

one being Radix Angelicae Dahuricae (Bai Zhi). By important, I mean

most commonly appearing from the Tang dynasty to today.

 

Recently, a Blue Poppy customer complained about one of the

ingredients in our shampoo (sodium lauryl sulphate or some other such

thing, a pretty standard ingredient in commercial shampoos). She said

that this ingredient is a " know irritant. " Therefore, she did not want

to buy any shampoo with this ingredient in it. As support for this

opinion, the woman, who is an acupuncture practitioner, mentioned that

some hairdressers get red hands from shampoos with this ingredient in

it if they use it all day long. At first I was concerned about this.

 

However, when I gave this more thought, I realized that this person

had not, at least to my mind, thought deeply enough about this issue

and all its implications. All the typical ingredients in traditional

Chinese mei rong (i.e., cosmetic) formulas are irritating to the skin.

In fact, that is how they work. Acrid, warm exterior-resolvers move

the qi and, therefore, the blood when applied externally. They are

stimulants. However, irritation is nothing other than stimulation

which a particular individual has found annoying. In the practice of

medicine, both Chinese and Western, irritation is an acceptable

therapeutic principles, e.g., counter-irritation. After all, on one

level, this is waht acupuncture and moxibustion both do.

 

By stimulating the qi and blood in the exterior, the qi and blood

warm, construct, nourish, moisten, and densely packing the skin and

interstices, thus making the skin look smoother, more lustrous, and

more healthy. In other words, to use the lingo of Western med, these

medicinals work externally as circulatory stimulants. However, in

certain people, varying degrees of sensitivity to stimulants not only

create beneficial stimulation but may produce negative irritation.

This depends on the individual's qi, what Western MDs might call an

atopic tendency. As clinicians, we see this all the time in practice.

A topical medicine which works wonderfully in one patient may cause

unwanted irritation in another. This is why we always apply topicals

to a small test area first to see what the patient's reaction is going

to be.

 

The point I'm getting at here is that, as a group, I think we

sometimes need to think more deeply about our medicine and how it

works. My guess is that this customer would applaud the qi-moving,

blood-quickening properties of the acrid exterior-resolves in our

shampoo, such as Radix Angelicae Sinensis (Dang Gui) and Radix

Angelicae Dahuricae (Bai Zhi). However, she decries the nasty

" chemical " irritant. While this chemical (and potentially the Chinese

herbs as well) may cause unwanted irritation when a person immerses

their hands in such a product all day long, day in and day out, that

is not how the product is designed to be used. It might also cause

unwanted irritation in a small percentage of persons who are prone to

atopic reactions, in which case, they have special needs for special

products.

 

In other words, a little irritation is good for the skin. It is only

too much that is a problem. Dry brushing, salt-rubbing, the tui na

maneuver called ca fa (chafing technique), anything which is

exfoliating, even scratching an itch are all irritating to the skin.

This is how they work. They are supposed to be irritating. The

question is only one of degree, not kind, as to whether this is

negatively irritating or beneficially stimulating.

 

Mark Seem makes this same point about acupuncture. Everybody wants

painless acupuncture. But the question is, does painless acupuncture

get the same clinical results? Anyone care to comment on any of this?

 

Bob

 

, yulong@m... wrote:

>

>

> Needham wrote about a relatively early use

> of Chinese herbs, I don't recall off hand

> if it's in Science and Civilization or in

> the little book of lectures he gave in HK

> in 81. Smoke from burning herbs was used

> to fumigate libraries when worms were the

> scholars' worst enemies. Burning herbs were

> also used as a method pest control in

> farming.

>

> There is a common tradition that is

> widespread in China to this day. On the 5th

> day of the 5th lunar month, which is

> the anniversary celebrated to commemorate

> the death of the poet Qu Yuan, people

> hang a knot of herbs, usually different

> varieties of artemisia, on their door

> and windows.

>

> Whether it's thought of as driving away

> evil spirits, worms and vermin, or noxious

> odors, the actions remain more or less the

> same. There is also a body of literature

> in China on the use of herbs in bathing

> and other external uses as a means of personal

> hygiene. We've been chewing on it for a few

> years now.

>

> Other than Needhams' comments, I don't know

> of much in the way of English language literature

> on these topics.

>

> Ken

>

> , wrote:

> > A patient of mine has made a request for information in an area of

> CM

> > that is outside my area of expertise. I plan to give it the same

> > respect I would give any quasi-religious belief. This patient is

> into

> > feng shui and wants to know what I can add to her efforts. This

is

> not

> > a joke and any help would be appreciated. Is anyone familiar with

> > resources, websites or rituals that involve the use of chinese

> herbs to

> > drive evil spirits from a house?

> >

> > --

>

[Guest guest]

But the question is, does painless acupuncture

get the same clinical results? Anyone care to comment on any of this?

 

Bob

 

Some practitioners I know in Australia who had a TCM background have

" converted " to Japanese style acupuncture eg Ikeda style etc , and

they say are getting better results than what they used to and the

treatment is totally painless.

 

Heiko

[Guest guest]

Bob wrote:

>

> But the question is, does painless acupuncture

> get the same clinical results? Anyone care to comment on any of this?

 

I worked in a clinic for a while where many of the patients were

hypersensitive to needles and for many of them I couldn't insert any

further than guide tube depth. Meaning, I just popped them in with the

guide tube but no further.

 

At first, I thought that the issue was mostly psychological and after a

month of treating this one patient in particular, I decided to go in

deeper. By this time, she already trusted me and once she laid down on

the treatment table, she was just off in her thoughts. So, I decided to

try one deep insertion, since she wasn't really watching or cognizant of

what I was doing anymore. I went deep and she went through the ceiling.

 

I decided at that point that her sensitivity was not psychological, but

very much physical.

 

Then I decided to determine the medical efficacy of the shallow guide

tube depth insertion. A patient came with a variety of symptoms. I

inserted needles for all but one of her complaints. She didn't know

what the points were for and I didn't tell her that I was ignoring one

of her complaints. The next week, she came back saying that all of her

symptoms were better, but for one. That was the one that I had ignored.

So, that suggested to me that superficial needling worked, if it were

all placebo, then all of her symptoms would have shown improvement, but

the one that I ignored didn't get better.

 

--

Al Stone L.Ac.

<AlStone

http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

[Guest guest]

Iinserted needles for all but one of her complaints. She didn't knowwhat the points were for and I didn't tell her that I was ignoring oneof her complaints.

>>>I can prove that shallow insertion can be very effective. I can take a restricted joint with much reduced ROM and get an immediate release. I do this in my classes all the time to make people appreciate how much you can do with a shallow insertion. However there are many situations that require deep needling

Alon

 

-

 

Al Stone

Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:57 PM

Re: Re: ghosts into hygiene

Bob wrote:> > But the question is, does painless acupuncture> get the same clinical results? Anyone care to comment on any of this?I worked in a clinic for a while where many of the patients werehypersensitive to needles and for many of them I couldn't insert anyfurther than guide tube depth. Meaning, I just popped them in with theguide tube but no further.At first, I thought that the issue was mostly psychological and after amonth of treating this one patient in particular, I decided to go indeeper. By this time, she already trusted me and once she laid down onthe treatment table, she was just off in her thoughts. So, I decided totry one deep insertion, since she wasn't really watching or cognizant ofwhat I was doing anymore. I went deep and she went through the ceiling.I decided at that point that her sensitivity was not psychological, butvery much physical.Then I decided to determine the medical efficacy of the shallow guidetube depth insertion. A patient came with a variety of symptoms. Iinserted needles for all but one of her complaints. She didn't knowwhat the points were for and I didn't tell her that I was ignoring oneof her complaints. The next week, she came back saying that all of hersymptoms were better, but for one. That was the one that I had ignored. So, that suggested to me that superficial needling worked, if it wereall placebo, then all of her symptoms would have shown improvement, butthe one that I ignored didn't get better.-- Al Stone L.Ac.<AlStonehttp://www.BeyondWellBeing.comPain is inevitable, suffering is optional.Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

You have proven that you were able to immediately release the

restricted joint, but you have not proven that it was the shallow

needling that accomplished that. Post hoc does not necessarily

establish propter hoc. My original point is that acupuncture is a

multifactorial, two-way interchange between patient and practitioner,

and, without certain controls (which are, realistically impossible or

at least very difficult to establish), we do not know what

accomplishes the effects we all experience when we insert needles.

 

Having only recently rejoined this group, it is my impression based on

23 years experience with acupuncture that the overall statistical

results of all styles and levels of experience of acupuncture is

basically the same. Now, before anyone starts hyperventilating, I have

no studies to back up this impression, other than one or two which

concluded that so-called placebo acupuncture was as effective as

so-called real acupuncture. I may be totally off-base here. However, I

think this would be a VERY good study to conduct. I think the

outcomes would be extremely important no matter what they turned out

to be.

 

My original questions had nothing really to do with the relative

merits of deep or shallow needling. They had to do with how we know

what we think we know and what are the types of proofs we accept as

medical professionals. It's interesting that no one has chosen to

respond to the meta-issues here rather than the secondary example I

used to frame the question.

 

Bob

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I

> inserted needles for all but one of her complaints. She didn't know

> what the points were for and I didn't tell her that I was ignoring

one

> of her complaints.

> >>>I can prove that shallow insertion can be very effective. I can

take a restricted joint with much reduced ROM and get an immediate

release. I do this in my classes all the time to make people

appreciate how much you can do with a shallow insertion. However there

are many situations that require deep needling

> Alon

>

> -

> Al Stone

>

> Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:57 PM

> Re: Re: ghosts into hygiene

>

>

>

>

> Bob wrote:

> >

> > But the question is, does painless acupuncture

> > get the same clinical results? Anyone care to comment on any of

this?

>

> I worked in a clinic for a while where many of the patients were

> hypersensitive to needles and for many of them I couldn't insert

any

> further than guide tube depth. Meaning, I just popped them in with

the

> guide tube but no further.

>

> At first, I thought that the issue was mostly psychological and

after a

> month of treating this one patient in particular, I decided to go

in

> deeper. By this time, she already trusted me and once she laid

down on

> the treatment table, she was just off in her thoughts. So, I

decided to

> try one deep insertion, since she wasn't really watching or

cognizant of

> what I was doing anymore. I went deep and she went through the

ceiling.

>

> I decided at that point that her sensitivity was not

psychological, but

> very much physical.

>

> Then I decided to determine the medical efficacy of the shallow

guide

> tube depth insertion. A patient came with a variety of symptoms.

I

> inserted needles for all but one of her complaints. She didn't

know

> what the points were for and I didn't tell her that I was ignoring

one

> of her complaints. The next week, she came back saying that all

of her

> symptoms were better, but for one. That was the one that I had

ignored.

> So, that suggested to me that superficial needling worked, if it

were

> all placebo, then all of her symptoms would have shown

improvement, but

> the one that I ignored didn't get better.

>

> --

> Al Stone L.Ac.

> <AlStone@B...>

> http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com

>

> Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

>

>

[Guest guest]

, pemachophel2001 wrote:

> Having only recently rejoined this group, it is my impression based

on

> 23 years experience with acupuncture that the overall statistical

> results of all styles and levels of experience of acupuncture is

> basically the same. Now, before anyone starts hyperventilating, I

have

> no studies to back up this impression, other than one or two which

> concluded that so-called placebo acupuncture was as effective as

> so-called real acupuncture. I may be totally off-base here.

However, I

> think this would be a VERY good study to conduct. I think the

> outcomes would be extremely important no matter what they turned

out

> to be.

>

> My original questions had nothing really to do with the relative

> merits of deep or shallow needling. They had to do with how we know

> what we think we know and what are the types of proofs we accept as

> medical professionals. It's interesting that no one has chosen to

> respond to the meta-issues here rather than the secondary example I

> used to frame the question.

>

> Bob

>

 

Not sure quite what you mean about meta-issues -- epistemology? How

do we know what we know? The guidance I got when I was in school

(this includes your writings) was that one finds a suitable teacher

and accept that teacher's word as gospel. Later one can break with

that to find one's own way -- shu ha ri.

 

I think you are basically right in saying we may never know in the

objective (i.e. biophysical) sense just what we're doing with

acupuncture and moxibustion. As far as studies go, Prof. Nishijo's

research suggests shallow and deep needling (as well as patient

positioning and inspir/expir phase) have different autonomic

effects. So there's at least some attempt to do something along

similar lines of thought.

 

rh

[Guest guest]

>

> Not sure quite what you mean about meta-issues -- epistemology?

 

An important thing to note in this regard is the

fact that traditional Chinese epistemology is

substantively different from the study of knowledge

that underlies and constitutes the basis of

modern scientific thought. This may seem like

something " everybody knows, " but I wonder how

many people have an accurate understanding of

how the authors of the Nei Jing, for example, looked at

described and thought about their world.

 

Lin Yu Tang wrote about this topic in several

places, i.e. fundamental differences in worldview

and epistemology between China and the West,

and there is that brilliant intro to

Yuan Dao by Roger Ames that illuminates

the nature of Han (i.e. prototypical " Chinese " )

thinking in terms of its origins in which one

can clearly see the extent to which Han

thinking and expression differs from Western

European and American traditions.

 

Point being that if we sincerely want to understand

the content of Chinese medical theory, we should

familiarize ourselves with the methods of thought

that those who devised the theories employed in

doing so as well as the modes of transmission of

these theories that have resulted in their survival

for thousands of years.

 

How

> do we know what we know? The guidance I got when I was in school

> (this includes your writings) was that one finds a suitable teacher

> and accept that teacher's word as gospel. Later one can break with

> that to find one's own way -- shu ha ri.

 

But speaking of the traditional methods of the

transmission of Chinese medical knowledge, I'd

say that the attitude you describe here more

or less mocks the traditional values, at least

as I have come to understand them. The idea

of the relationship between student and teacher

being entered into with the idea of it being

essentially a throw-away committment is antithetical

to the attitude required of such relationships,

in my own experience.

 

As a teacher, would you be pleased with a student

who came to you and said, " I want to study with

you but I will break with what you teach me

in order to find my own way later. " ?

 

The transmission of traditional arts and sciences

in China does have a set of patterns. Fathers

taught sons, an internal or familial lineage.

Masters (literally, teacher/fathers) accepted

disciples who in choosing to study outside of

their own families (for whatever reasons) accepted

the master in place of their own father.

 

In a Confucian society, this is no small step;

nor is it one that one takes with the idea that

it will be cast aside at a later date when it

has outlived its usefulness. It is a deep

and durable committment.

 

Regardless if one seeks to enter into this

sort of traditional teacher-student relationship,

we should recognize that there's a difference between

the significance of these relationships in China and the West.

If we seek to employ traditional methods, what

are the implications of such a choice? And if

we seek to alter them, what might the implications

of that choice be? Can we undertake a conscious

evolution of such traditions in the absence of

a thorough understanding of their origins?

 

 

There are important implications of the traditional

approach to the transmission of knowledge. I for

one am not ready to say that I know better than

generations of Chinese doctors and scholars...

about anything, but certainly not about how

to teach, study and transmit the subject.

 

Nor do I feel therefore bound to the past.

The theories that animate the whole subject

suggest...no, require that we maintain a

changable mind and attitude.

 

 

>

> I think you are basically right in saying we may never know in the

> objective (i.e. biophysical) sense just what we're doing with

> acupuncture and moxibustion.

 

The body is the body despite the term set employed

to develop descrtions and explanations of it. The

Chinese have been evolving an eloquent and functional

understanding of the body in whatever terms and

methods were available for the past many centuries.

 

This work continues at present. There is no

implicate conflict between traditional Chinese

descriptions and modern biophysical understandings

of the body. Both are simply best effort attempts

by people at different times with different languages

and cultural backgrounds and different intellectual tools to

develop functional definitions and descritions

of the body that enable others to deal with

them more effectively.

 

Bob's original question, i.e. how do we know what

we know about Chinese medicine is a critically

important one, and like many such questions it

is probably more important that we ask it of

ourselves than that we come up with quick

answers.

 

>As far as studies go, Prof. Nishijo's

> research suggests shallow and deep needling (as well as patient

> positioning and inspir/expir phase) have different autonomic

> effects. So there's at least some attempt to do something along

> similar lines of thought.

>

Ranging from physical to biophysical to metaphysical

can lead to confusions, but I think that we do need

to take time now and then to investigate the

presumptions that we bring to the study and

practice of Chinese medicine.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, yulong@m... wrote:

>

> > How

> > do we know what we know? The guidance I got when I was in school

> > (this includes your writings) was that one finds a suitable

teacher

> > and accept that teacher's word as gospel. Later one can break

with

> > that to find one's own way -- shu ha ri.

>

> But speaking of the traditional methods of the

> transmission of Chinese medical knowledge, I'd

> say that the attitude you describe here more

> or less mocks the traditional values, at least

> as I have come to understand them. The idea

> of the relationship between student and teacher

> being entered into with the idea of it being

> essentially a throw-away committment is antithetical

> to the attitude required of such relationships,

> in my own experience.

 

I'm likely wrong then, but it's my understanding that this is the

traditional way; " shu ha ri " is a Japanese transliteration of a

Chinese phrase -- the pinyin escapes me at the moment, but I've read quote it on this forum.

 

>

> As a teacher, would you be pleased with a student

> who came to you and said, " I want to study with

> you but I will break with what you teach me

> in order to find my own way later. " ?

 

It seems to me to be implicit, if not explicit. It is not a throw-

away relationship at all-- it is expected that the student will move

beyond the teachings... how else is the medicine to progress? The

student enters into the relationship with the intent to obey the

teacher's authority, only later does s/he realize the need to

transcend the teaching. This does not mean the relationship is

invalid; Shudo Denmei still refers to his first teacher, Master

Miura, as " my teacher " , even though he came to practice a very

different style of acupuncture and moxibustion. Their relationship

carried on until Master Miura's death.

 

Speaking as a teacher, albeit one with limited experience, I would

rather my students found their own way once they are done with my

tutelage. Why would I want any less for them?

 

Of course I defer to your authority, you are much more learned in

these cultural traditions than I. I may be completely mistaken;

wouldn't be the first time.

 

> >

> Ranging from physical to biophysical to metaphysical

> can lead to confusions, but I think that we do need

> to take time now and then to investigate the

> presumptions that we bring to the study and

> practice of Chinese medicine.

>

>

 

Can't argue with that. I'll go back to lurking now.

 

rh

[Guest guest]

As a teacher, would you be pleased with a studentwho came to you and said, "I want to study withyou but I will break with what you teach mein order to find my own way later."

>>>Yes and I would expect it. Hopefully some of what I teach influences him in the long run.

Alon

 

-

yulong

Friday, July 27, 2001 11:41 AM

Re: ghosts into hygiene

> > Not sure quite what you mean about meta-issues -- epistemology?An important thing to note in this regard is thefact that traditional Chinese epistemology issubstantively different from the study of knowledgethat underlies and constitutes the basis ofmodern scientific thought. This may seem likesomething "everybody knows," but I wonder howmany people have an accurate understanding ofhow the authors of the Nei Jing, for example, looked atdescribed and thought about their world.Lin Yu Tang wrote about this topic in severalplaces, i.e. fundamental differences in worldviewand epistemology between China and the West,and there is that brilliant intro toYuan Dao by Roger Ames that illuminatesthe nature of Han (i.e. prototypical "Chinese")thinking in terms of its origins in which onecan clearly see the extent to which Hanthinking and expression differs from WesternEuropean and American traditions. Point being that if we sincerely want to understandthe content of Chinese medical theory, we shouldfamiliarize ourselves with the methods of thoughtthat those who devised the theories employed indoing so as well as the modes of transmission ofthese theories that have resulted in their survivalfor thousands of years. How > do we know what we know? The guidance I got when I was in school > (this includes your writings) was that one finds a suitable teacher > and accept that teacher's word as gospel. Later one can break with > that to find one's own way -- shu ha ri.But speaking of the traditional methods of thetransmission of Chinese medical knowledge, I'dsay that the attitude you describe here moreor less mocks the traditional values, at leastas I have come to understand them. The ideaof the relationship between student and teacherbeing entered into with the idea of it beingessentially a throw-away committment is antitheticalto the attitude required of such relationships,in my own experience.As a teacher, would you be pleased with a studentwho came to you and said, "I want to study withyou but I will break with what you teach mein order to find my own way later." ?The transmission of traditional arts and sciencesin China does have a set of patterns. Fatherstaught sons, an internal or familial lineage.Masters (literally, teacher/fathers) accepteddisciples who in choosing to study outside oftheir own families (for whatever reasons) acceptedthe master in place of their own father.In a Confucian society, this is no small step;nor is it one that one takes with the idea thatit will be cast aside at a later date when ithas outlived its usefulness. It is a deepand durable committment. Regardless if one seeks to enter into thissort of traditional teacher-student relationship,we should recognize that there's a difference between the significance of these relationships in China and the West.If we seek to employ traditional methods, whatare the implications of such a choice? And ifwe seek to alter them, what might the implicationsof that choice be? Can we undertake a consciousevolution of such traditions in the absence ofa thorough understanding of their origins?There are important implications of the traditionalapproach to the transmission of knowledge. I forone am not ready to say that I know better thangenerations of Chinese doctors and scholars...about anything, but certainly not about howto teach, study and transmit the subject.Nor do I feel therefore bound to the past.The theories that animate the whole subjectsuggest...no, require that we maintain achangable mind and attitude.> > I think you are basically right in saying we may never know in the > objective (i.e. biophysical) sense just what we're doing with > acupuncture and moxibustion.The body is the body despite the term set employedto develop descrtions and explanations of it. The Chinese have been evolving an eloquent and functionalunderstanding of the body in whatever terms andmethods were available for the past many centuries.This work continues at present. There is noimplicate conflict between traditional Chinese descriptions and modern biophysical understandings of the body. Both are simply best effort attemptsby people at different times with different languages and cultural backgrounds and different intellectual tools todevelop functional definitions and descritionsof the body that enable others to deal withthem more effectively.Bob's original question, i.e. how do we know whatwe know about Chinese medicine is a critically important one, and like many such questions itis probably more important that we ask it ofourselves than that we come up with quickanswers. >As far as studies go, Prof. Nishijo's > research suggests shallow and deep needling (as well as patient > positioning and inspir/expir phase) have different autonomic > effects. So there's at least some attempt to do something along > similar lines of thought.> Ranging from physical to biophysical to metaphysicalcan lead to confusions, but I think that we do needto take time now and then to investigate the presumptions that we bring to the study andpractice of Chinese medicine.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

They had to do with how we know what we think we know and what are the types of proofs we accept as medical professionals.

>>>>Well if you are one that believe that all truth comes in a two by two table then you are correct. However, if you also trust your hands then it becomes much more complicated. I can tell you that using very strict criteria of statistics no acupuncture study has ever shown to do much including animal studies. None of the studies I have seen deducted for randomness. And when you do a P value would have been negative. I am also willing to bat that no study on any of TCM diagnostics will ever show a high Kappa score if the statistics are done by somebody like Bukduke

Alon

 

-

pemachophel2001

Friday, July 27, 2001 8:10 AM

Re: ghosts into hygiene

Alon,You have proven that you were able to immediately release the restricted joint, but you have not proven that it was the shallow needling that accomplished that. Post hoc does not necessarily establish propter hoc. My original point is that acupuncture is a multifactorial, two-way interchange between patient and practitioner, and, without certain controls (which are, realistically impossible or at least very difficult to establish), we do not know what accomplishes the effects we all experience when we insert needles.Having only recently rejoined this group, it is my impression based on 23 years experience with acupuncture that the overall statistical results of all styles and levels of experience of acupuncture is basically the same. Now, before anyone starts hyperventilating, I have no studies to back up this impression, other than one or two which concluded that so-called placebo acupuncture was as effective as so-called real acupuncture. I may be totally off-base here. However, I think this would be a VERY good study to conduct. I think the outcomes would be extremely important no matter what they turned out to be.My original questions had nothing really to do with the relative merits of deep or shallow needling. They had to do with how we know what we think we know and what are the types of proofs we accept as medical professionals. It's interesting that no one has chosen to respond to the meta-issues here rather than the secondary example I used to frame the question.Bob , "Alon Marcus" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> I> inserted needles for all but one of her complaints. She didn't know> what the points were for and I didn't tell her that I was ignoring one> of her complaints. > >>>I can prove that shallow insertion can be very effective. I can take a restricted joint with much reduced ROM and get an immediate release. I do this in my classes all the time to make people appreciate how much you can do with a shallow insertion. However there are many situations that require deep needling> Alon> > - > Al Stone > > Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:57 PM> Re: Re: ghosts into hygiene> > > > > Bob wrote:> > > > But the question is, does painless acupuncture> > get the same clinical results? Anyone care to comment on any of this?> > I worked in a clinic for a while where many of the patients were> hypersensitive to needles and for many of them I couldn't insert any> further than guide tube depth. Meaning, I just popped them in with the> guide tube but no further.> > At first, I thought that the issue was mostly psychological and after a> month of treating this one patient in particular, I decided to go in> deeper. By this time, she already trusted me and once she laid down on> the treatment table, she was just off in her thoughts. So, I decided to> try one deep insertion, since she wasn't really watching or cognizant of> what I was doing anymore. I went deep and she went through the ceiling.> > I decided at that point that her sensitivity was not psychological, but> very much physical.> > Then I decided to determine the medical efficacy of the shallow guide> tube depth insertion. A patient came with a variety of symptoms. I> inserted needles for all but one of her complaints. She didn't know> what the points were for and I didn't tell her that I was ignoring one> of her complaints. The next week, she came back saying that all of her> symptoms were better, but for one. That was the one that I had ignored. > So, that suggested to me that superficial needling worked, if it were> all placebo, then all of her symptoms would have shown improvement, but> the one that I ignored didn't get better.> > -- > Al Stone L.Ac.> <AlStone@B...>> http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com> > Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.> >