Talk:Medical acupuncture

Moved from "Modern (Western) acupuncture" discussion page

Medical acupuncture

Isn't this the same as medical acupuncture? It makes no mention of it. The opening paragraph should be a one-sentence definition, which is lacking here as well. Please clarify. heidimo 22:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

There is also an apparent contradiction in this somewhat partisan (or at least condescending) article. If the "apparatus" of traditional points is "ignored or radically reinterpreted," then why is there a mention of "trigger points" as being important later? I've done some NPOV editing, but more needs to be done. Fire Star 06:42, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed! heidimo 15:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I have found something else about this. Out of suspicion that this is a joke article, I did a quick Google search on Wilhelm Ten Rijn and found this:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Modern%20(Western)%20acupuncture

This may or may not violate copyright regulations. Fire Star 13:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Does look suspicious to have the same exact entry in 2 encyclopedias, but I guess if they're both "free" content it may be ok. Perhaps we should rewrite this to be about medical acupuncture. I have never heard of the term used in the title of this page. To add to the suspicious nature, the person who posted this article does not have a user page, so we can't ask about it. Every other editor apparently has tried to improve the article without necessarily addressing the content until recently. If nobody defends it soon, let's retitle and do a major rewrite. Any objections from any one? heidimo 15:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Cheers, H. It definitely should be renamed. Chinese acupuncture is just as "modern," it just has a (much) longer history. The article also gave the impression to the casual reader (until I reworded things a bit) that "Modern" Western acupuncture had been around for centuries. This page also seems to have wanted to give the impression that there is no need to actually learn any theory or technique from the quaint, if backward, Chinese - if a Westerner just wants to start sticking needles anywhere it will work just as well. I exagerrate for effect, but only slightly. While we should certainly leave in all of the information presented, the editorial slant is partisan and insulting and has to go. My vote is that this puppy is a candidate for a complete rewrite. I'll do what I can, but as I'm not an acupuncturist please check in if you can to keep me in line! Fire Star 20:33, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure, Fire Star, between the 2 of us I'm sure we can whip it into shape, assuming at this point earlier contributors aren't showing any interest. Thanks for your efforts, as always. heidimo 22:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Comments from the author of the original article

1. The material in the encyclopedia cited above has been taken from my web page, without acknowledgement. The copyright is mine.

2. Modern "western" acupuncture has indeed been around for a long time, at least since the early nineteenth century, when John Churchill wrote his monograph on the subject in 1821 (further book in 1828). It attracted a lot of favourable notice but fizzled out later, except at UCH in London and the Leeds General Infirmary, where it was still being used in the 1870s. This acupuncture was carried out without much reference to its oriental roots. User:Acampbell70, 10 May 2004.

Thanks for the clarification. heidimo 15:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

New discussion after move begins here

Rewrite

I gave it a re-write. Whatcha think? Can you improve on it? heidimo 23:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

It has been much improved. I added half a sentence after the "heresy" comment, as the idea of just sticking needles anywhere does indeed seem irresponsible to a classicly trained practitioner.Fire Star 14:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Glad you find it improved. Agreed, to your addition. I expanded and reworded that bit to make the language work, and to emphasize the danger of this approach. Sorta like "it doesn't matter where you stick the scalpel into the brain" approach to brain surgery? heidimo 15:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

which can be difficult for the Western mind to grasp

Unless someone has evidence suggesting there is a defference between the western mind and the eastern mind I'm taking out this comment.Feel free to replace it with person y or group x say/saidGeni 08:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Geni, it is poor wikiquette to make frivolous accusations of racism, and will not win you friends among other Wikipedians. I realize you are a newbie, so you might want to brush up on that. Such accusations can be revised, as you have, but cannot be undone.

If you are unfamiliar with the field of Anthropology, it is rife with a tremendous amount of documentation of cultural misunderstandings which painfully demonstrate the difficulty of the Western mind in grasping non-Western thought. Perhaps a review of the missionary tradition and its impact on world religious traditions, notably Taoism, would help you come to grips with these cultural differences in thought and mind. To state that Taoist mysticism is difficult for Westerners to grasp is an understatement, but to state that it can be difficult is not POV.

You did not say westeners you said the western mind. I think the problem is that we interprit that phrase differently. To me it means that by an acident of goegraphy people are incaperble of thinking in certian ways. To you it means that taoism and other relgions belonging to the chinoindo subcontinat do not tie in well with the dominat materist and somewhat reductionist philophy that is prevatlent in the west. Am I correct in thinking this? At the moment you have shown that some elements of western culture do not combien well with certian elements of traditional chinese/indian (and the various other copuntries around that area) but you went much further than that in your stament. Do you see now why I have problem with it?

I get the impression you are following me around mining for POV. It may just be a coincidence. If you are searching for a way to be helpful, perhaps you would like to write the article on acupuncture point or put in some time at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention or cleanup. heidimo 20:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the CAM project because that is an area that interests me. Asside from that I'm trying to put together articles on all of the canals of England. I do my best to keep track of what is going on elsewhere but a lot of these are in areas I have little knowlage of.

Most adverse events caused by medical acupuncturists

What is the evidence for this statement? A recent paper by White et al., Adverse events following acupuncture: prospective survey of 32000 consultations with doctors and physiotherapists. BMJ 2001;323:485-6., showed a low incidence of adverse effects, none serious. I think statements of this kind should be excluded unless adequately referenced. User:Acampbell70

Well, I'll admit I was a bit surprised to see a reference to pneumothorax resulting from an acupuncture treatment! That would not be an easy thing to do... Fire Star 20:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the statement and will only replace it if I find the documentation. Fire Star, please see the main acupuncture article for a discussion of hazards. These were emphasized repeatedly while I was in TCM acupuncture school. Rare, yes; unheard-of, no. A couple of years ago an MD practicing medical acupuncture put a patient in the hospital by puncturing their kidney, here in the town where I live. Embarassing for us all. heidimo 23:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Remarkable. I don't doubt what you say, but I wasn't expecting pneunothorax as a possible complication of acupuncture! I worked in the OR of a major urban trauma center in the middle of a drug war for 17 years, so I know a little bit about sucking chest wounds, and I guess I just didn't think that acupuncture needles had enough diameter. My thought was; bullets, yes, needles, no. But, every possibility has to be considered. That shows you how much I know about acupuncture! It is good that you guys are prepared for all of that. Cheers, Fire Star 03:53, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I have been prepared to never, ever do that and if I somehow do, I'm prepared to call 911! Send them to that OR. I bet very few OR's have ever seen an acupuncture injury, unless it was a do-it-yourself job. (Kids, do not try this at home. Seek professional help!)  ;) heidimo 04:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Almost every organ in the body has probably been damaged by acupuncture at some time and pneumothorax is the commonest serious injury. Needling anywhere round the chest wall, including the commonly used GB21, can do this. An acupuncture needle is certainly capable of inducing pneumothorax and this may not be apparent clinically or on x ray for up to 24 hours.

Another important and potentially lethal site is over the sternum (CV17). About 5-8 per cent of the population have a defect at this site (foramen sternale) which can allow a needle to penetrate the heart. This results in blood leaking into the pericardial sac and causing cardiac tamponade due to the pressure becoming equal inside and outside the heart in diastole. Some 8 to 10 cases of this have been reported in the last few years and at least 2 were fatal.

Another potentially dangerous site that is commonly used is LI4 in the hand. In the last few years 2 patients in Germany suffered damage to the radial artery at this point which resulted in amputation of the hand.

To put all this in perspective, the risks of acupuncture, if performed by someone with adequate anatomical knowledge, are probably less than those of giving the commonly used non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (some of which are available over the counter). Acupuncture is generally pretty safe if done properly. Nevertheless it has to be realized that the insertion of needles into the body can never be risk-free and in some cases it can even be fatal. Acampbell70

The current issue of Acupuncture Today just arrived in my mailbox. It has an article on "Preventing Pneumothorax." heidimo 16:05, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Section entitled "Mechanism"

I removed the following non-encyclopedic comments form this section: "Add in about 'Living Matrix', bioelectromagnetism, reductionist paradigm not the whole story, etc, here." Edwardian 22:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following lines: "Quantum science is beginning to reveal many of the complex mechanisms of the human body that have been beyond the understanding of previous Newtonian western scientific theories, and seem to point towards a future merging of western and traditional oriental medical understanding." No matter, who said that, as a physicist I can say, that quantum theory by itself has nothing to say about the macroscopic functions of the human body. People usually use this fancy word to give the impression they are talking about something, that other people cannot understand. The only thing quantum theory can tell us about acupuncture might be that you should think more in a holistic than in a reductionist way about the human body. But to express that, fancy words like "quantum theory" are unnecessary. coffeefellow 15:43, 8 December 2006 (GMT+1)

Good catch. The use of the words "quantum bla, bla" in alt med subjects is often a red flag preceding some sort of pseudscientific speculation presented as fact. -- Fyslee 15:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

This entire article seems rather biased and not really NPOV. However, since I'm not familiar with the subject I'm not confident about fixing it. --Chrysoula 16:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The field itself is a sort of POV fork.  :-) -Jim Butler^(talk) 07:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

NCCAM classification; not a manipulative method

I just removed this from the infobox: NCCAM: Manipulative Methods. NCCAM does not place so-called "medical acupuncture" in any category, though it does include acupuncture per se under Energy Medicine (kind of missing the point that its actual mechanisms don't depend on the ancient Chinese world-view, but c'est la vie), and it includes TCM (and thus acupuncture) Whole Medical Systems.

I also removed Template:Manipulative_and_body-based_methods because acupuncture doesn't fit the definition and I can't find any reliable source saying it does. Acupressure and shiatsu, sure, but not needle insertion. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 02:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You have stated a series of your own conclusions. Where are the facts? I pointed out your conclusion errors on my talk pages, which you have conveniently ignored. Medical acupuncture is intended to be a scientific form of acupuncture that is devoid of the energy mumbo jumbo of TCM. How well it has succeeded is entirely besides the point. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Save your flames; all you're doing is violating WP:CIVIL (and WP:ES), which won't do you any good on WP. You request facts, which I've cited above, along with some logic as well. Now your turn to do the same. If acupuncture (of any type, "medical" or otherwise) is seen as a manipulative therapy, then per WP:V, please show a source to that effect. Later. Jim Butler^(talk) 06:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)