Western science seems to provide substantial support for the
theraputic claims of acupuncture in some domains - such as pain relief.
There are several proposed mechanisms for how acupuncture might work:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7215/973
....describes some of the theories.
The theories include stimulating stress and immune responses and
triggering the release of endorphins.
It seems likely that some points are better stimulated than others -
and that different points have somewhat different effects.
Modern acupuncturists use electrical devices that measure skin resistance
to locate acupuncture points.
My question is whether is has been determined whether modern knowledge
about which places are best stimulated matches the points used
traditionally.
There have been various claims that this is the case - e.g. see:
http://www.vigneshacupuncture.com/meridian.htm
However the whole idea of preferred points seems to be being disputed by
some practitioners - e.g.:
``My experience of forty years exclusive practice of acupuncture suggests
that acupuncture joints do not exist. [...] One can put a needle
literally anywhere in the hand or foot of the appropriate patient to
produce an alteration in the patient's symptoms. One does not have to
needle tender areas, trigger points, hard or indurated areas, places
with a reduced electrical skin resistance or even acupuncture points.''
- http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/319/7215/973#5138
So - did the ancients get their points right or wrong?
Or is it not terribly critical where the needles go?
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.