On Apr 22, 6:08 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Thanks for posting.  It is clear that there is a large amount
of MODERN research verifying much of what the ancient Chinese
discovered while western doctors were busy bleeding people and
theorizing
on how many teeth were in the mouth of a horse (Aristotle had it
wrong).

We see, in the unreasoning changes of subject, hysterical "sham"
condemnations
and AVOIDANCE of discussion on  modern research, the utter bankruptcy
of the skeptics and "aunties" knee-jerk reflex reaction to Acupuncture
as with every other form of alternative medical system.

We have posted information, links, research and offered polite
discussion
of the facts involved and again and again the skeptics refuse to
educate themselves
as to the simplest precepts of Acupuncture and persist in their
unreasoning denunciations, accusations, insults, rationalizations,
equivocations, changes of subject, distractions and other avoidance of
the physical facts at issue.

Faced with growing verification and confirmation of widespread
benefits
from Acupuncture treatments, even for those for which no other type of
medical treatment gave relief, the skeptics have drawn their wagons of
ignorance into a defensive circle, prepared to be wiped out in the
realm of logic rather than admit
the growing body of evidence overwhelmingly in favor of the beneficial
effects of Acupuncture treatments.

In an additional effort to reinforce their ignorance of the subject,
and convince themselves of the inviolate "sagacity" of their own
prejudice, they carefully
mix modern research phenomena with the opinions of ancient Chinese
physicians whose discoveries, despite being couched in the language
and concepts of a pre-scientific era,probably saved more lives,
ameliorated more suffering and brought hope and life to more people
than a hospital full of "chemotherapy" poisons.

Citizen Jimserac

Well below is what that paper actually says in the text  -- rather fragile
material.    Apparently there are problems in replicating these effects, and
what would such results mean anyway?   Tell, me, does acupuncture enhance
vision?    What does it do in any eye disease?   In diseases of the eye,
such as, say a cataract or glaucoma, why would you want the perfectly normal
visual cortex brain areas stimulated rather than motor, sensory or
sympathetic/parasympathetic neural connection that actually have some
connection with the eye itself?    Or some influence, such as increased
blood flow,  in the eye itself ?    This is science at its most naive and
simplistic performed by believers who obviously just want a little
something, anthing at all reaally, that can be made to look as though it
supports their beliefs, rather than contribute to scientific knowledge.  As
soon as you try to switch from a mystical comprehension of TCM to a reality
based one you end up with such unresolvable questions.  You cannot claim
that  acupuncture is a neural phenomenon when it suits you and that it is
something else when that does not suit.

 QUote --

Cho et al.'s (2) work was the first to identify that specific areas of the
visual cortex appeared to be activated in response to acupuncture points in
the foot in the same way as it would respond to a stimulation from a light
source shone into the eyes. The main point used to stimulate visual cortex
was UB67; Cho and co-workers claimed that a difference in character of the
subjects (i.e. Yin or Yan) accounted for variations in the pattern of
response. This was point-specific and so could not be reduplicated through
similar stimulation in a non-acupuncture point. A number of other visually
active acupuncture points were manipulated and produced a similarly
predictable response in accordance with traditional Chinese principles. The
stimulation of auditory-related points similarly produced activation of the
auditory cortex (5). Although the studies only involved small numbers of
volunteers, the science appeared convincing. Further reduplication by others
(6,7) and also continuing work by Cho and co-workers seems to support this
hypothesis. Siedentopf et al. (8) suggests similar phenomena to needle
puncture may be elicited by soft laser acupuncture, a finding supported by
Litscher et al. (9). However, Gareus et al. (10) throws some doubt on Cho's
findings. Therefore, while it appears that it is probable that
acupuncture-like stimulation of UB67 triggers specific activation of the
occipital cortex, it is by no means a uniform and consistent finding.

Li et al. (11) looked at the possibility that a similar phenomenon may be
elicited by using points specific to language in 17 healthy Mandarin
speaking Chinese volunteers. They suggest that there is stronger activation
in the left hemisphere and that electrical stimulation of two acupuncture
points (implicated in languages, i.e. SJ8 and Du15) produced significant
activation in an appropriate area of the brain, the right inferior frontal
gyrus and in the left and right superior temporal gyrie. However, activation
was not seen in the left inferior frontal gyrus and it is also clear that
not all acupuncturists would agree that these points are related to
language. Non-acupuncture points did not produce significant brain
activation, so these researchers concluded that specific acupuncture points
may have language-specific effects. Yoo et al. (12) noted that PC6 produces
a well documented clinical response to acupuncture in nausea. They were able
to demonstrate consistently that acupuncture-specific neural substrates are
selectively activated in the left superior frontal gyrus, the anterior
cingulate gyrus and the dorsomedial nucleus of the thalamus as well as
nausea-specific substrates in the cerebellum. This did not occur with
penetrating sham needling at a non-acupuncture point, thus suggesting a
PC6-specific effect that potentially correlates with proven clinical
effectiveness. Yan et al. (13) have demonstrated point-specific patterns
using fMRI in 37 healthy volunteers while needling LI4 and Liv3 as compared
to sham points. Common activation areas for LI4 and Liv3 were in the middle
temporal gyrus and cerebellum, along with deactivation areas in the middle
frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobule when compared with sham points.
Acupuncture at Liv3 evoked specific activation in the post-central gyrus,
posterior cingulated, parahippocampal gyrus, BA 7, 19 and 41, but
deactivation at the inferior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulated, BA 17 and
18 when compared with sham. LI4 evoked specific activation in the temporal
lobe but deactivation in the precentral gyrus, superior temporal gyrus,
pulvinar and BA 8, 9 and 45 when compared with sham. They suggest that these
different patterns may be related to specific therapeutic effects, although
it is difficult to justify this based on data obtained from healthy
volunteers receiving one acupuncture treatment.

Good God!

PM

Is there some reason -- other than the obvious one -- that you so steadfastly
refuse to acknowledge the references that I posted about two months ago?

-----
Richard Schultz                              schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"