Talk:List of acupuncture points

Standardization

I propose that this section have some set of standards listed as to the form and content of an acpuncture points description. Thus when the list of links is completed the point descriptions will all have the same format. I suggest the following format:

International Nomenclature, Chinese name in Pinyin, English translation (e.g. ST 36 Zusanli Foot Three Regions)
History (e.g. In the Nei Jing Su Wen, the bilateral zusanli points are mentioned...)
Location (e.g. On the lower leg...)
Traditional Functions (e.g. Harmonizes the Spleen and Stomach)
Modern Applications (e.g. jaundice)
Scientific Research (e.g. ...University affiliated hospital, treated the control group with atropine and valium, but not the acupuncture group, who were treated, instead, at zusanli...)
Commentary (e.g. Compare to LI 10 Hand Three Regions)
--Remark knights (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Shenmen

Thanks a lot for this marvellous list; a question: shouldn't it be 门 instead of 門 in Shenmen. In my dictionaries it's the first sign, so I used it in: de:Shenmen - which sign is correct? de:Benutzer:Redlinux 217.237.109.159 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are the same character; 門 is the traditional Chinese character, and 门 is the simplified Chinese character. They are basically interchangeable, but I chose to use the traditional forms in constructing this list because that was how they were written when they were developed, and I thought they may be more commonly used abroad (where fewer people would have learned the simplified forms promulgated by the People's Republic of China). There are probably quite a few more variations like this in the list, as well; though many are the same too. Rigadoun (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a lot, an easy explanation for a - in my eyes - difficult question; I agree with You and will use the traditional character! de:Benutzer:Redlinux 217.237.72.225 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not auto-direct the acupuncture points

There are heaps of info regarding each point, such as the location, function and potent--58.38.41.179 (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Pinyin names with tones?

Great resource! I would like to have the tones on the pinyin point names. If no one votes against this I might start to add them as I find the time to do so. Would write them like this: ū ù ú ǔ. --Nicolasnicolas (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning complete revision

Hi all!

After starting to review the point list I encountered some errors in the chinese characters. When starting to work on the page I will correct these after discussing them here on the page.

Furthermore my personal thought is, that the list should be part of the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture_point page. However I understand the concerns mentioned on the discussion page: it's a quiet long list, so a hyperlink to an extra article (this list of acupuncture points) might be a good idea.

I am against discussing the locations of the points. Starting this will start to spoil up the list. There are different traditions of acupuncture and for some points varying locations. Discussing this won't fit a single line per point. Hence I would like to drop these.

But I would like to add the japanese point names. Japanese acupuncture traditions also refer to a point predominantly by its name and not by its "id" (e.g. Lu1).

As for the format I am thinking of a table with columns (in that order): point id, traditional chinese characters (recognized in other asian countries as well), pinyin name with tones, japanese name, notes. The 'notes' row might take up alternative names or commonly used simplified characters, whatever concerns point id and name.

Again: I would like to limit the list contents to these informations and not start discussing each acupuncture point (which would include location, functions, indications, maybe combinations, etc.).

What do you think? --Nicolasnicolas (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Nicolasnicolas! I saw your post on WikiProject Japan. Though I'm not an expert on acupuncture, but as a native speaker, I think I can help you on Japanese names. Ja Wikipedia has their list articles. Here is the list. This EL might be helpful too. (The character encoding is Ja Shift_JIS) As for the ja names, generally kanji are as same as Chinese and the difference is only the pronunciation. Oda Mari (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Oda Mari! Although I am not able to read kanji, hiragana nor katakana, esp. the link to the japanese acupuncture point list will be very helpful in double checking my data. Up to now I have only two listings of rōmaji japanese names. May I ask for your help in checking a bunch of those name transcriptions later?--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Details

Search hits by Wikipedia search engine

I would like the Wikipedia search engine to produce search hits to this page for some varieties of point names. E.g. for St-36, 足三里, zú sān lǐ, san ri I would like to have also search hits for "zu san li", "zusanli", "zúsānlǐ" and "sanri". How can this be achieved?

足三里 is ashi-sanri. It is also called just 三里/sanri. But there's another (手)三里/LI 10. So sometimes 足 is added. Oda Mari (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Qualification of point names

I read about the "lang:" stuff and wonder whether and if, how this should be put to use with the acupuncture point names. What would be the exact code to be used with chinese characters (traditional/new), pinyin and japanese (the "san ri" in above example)?

Trusted information?

At the actual stage I am able to provide the source of each name (in characters, pinyin and japanese). However when copying the data there might have been a mistake. Not all names have been double checked by now. Maybe the best way to do this is to provide a box at the head of the page explaining this and then listing for each point name up to two sources for each point name. I know this is quiet a lot of work and I am unsure whether people who come across and use the information of this page will add to the verification process.

Revision of chinese characters in point names

俞 instead of 兪 in revision

According to mandarintools.com both characters share the same meaning. However all of my sources use the character 俞 for shū/yú. So in the revision I will change to this character for SI-10, SI-14 and SI-15. Sources: "A Manual of Acupuncture" by Deadman et al, "Die Wandlungsphasen der traditionellen chinesischen Medizin, Band 4, Wandlungsphase Feuer" by Lorenzen & Noll.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revise Bl-60 Kunlun 崑崙 to kūn lún 昆侖

According to "A Manual of Acupuncture" by Deadman et al, "Die Wandlungsphasen der traditionellen chinesischen Medizin, Band 5, Wandlungsphase Wasser" by Noll & Lorenzen the characters for this point are 昆侖. However Noll & Lorenzen note that the older writing 崑崙 emphasizes the meaning of (kunlun) mountains.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese transcription is konron. Oda Mari (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revise Kd-3 太溪 to 太谿

According to "A Manual of Acupuncture" by Deadman et al, "Die Wandlungsphasen der traditionellen chinesischen Medizin, Band 5, Wandlungsphase Wasser" by Noll & Lorenzen.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Taikei. But is it Kd3? The ja ref. says it's KI3. Oda Mari (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revise Pc-3 曲泽 to 曲澤

Which is the traditional writing according to mandarintools.com.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

kyokutaku. Oda Mari (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revise Pc-9 中冲 to 中衝

Which is the traditional writing according to mandarintools.com.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chūshō. Oda Mari (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revise SJ-22 和髎 to 耳和髎

耳 ěr means "ear", 耳和髎 ěr hé liáo "ear harmony crevice" according to "A Manual of Acupuncture" by Deadman et al.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revise Gb-6 懸釐 to 懸厘

Sources: "A Manual of Acupuncture" by Deadman et al, "Die Wandlungsphasen der traditionellen chinesischen Medizin, Band 1, Wandlungsphase Holz" by Lorenzen & Noll (who do not list Deadman in their references list), japanese wikipedia acupuncture point list for gallbladder meridian.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

St-45 厲兌

"A Manual of Acupuncture" by Deadman et al. is the only source writing St-45 as 儷兑 and translating 儷t as "strict". The actual point list, the japanese acupuncture point list of stomach meridian as well as "Die Wandlungsphasen der traditionellen chinesischen Medizin, Band 3, Wandlungsphase Erde" by Lorenzen & Noll name it 厲兌. Hence I will keep it this way.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revise Du-17 脳戸 to 腦戶

With help of www.acucn.com and www.mandarintools.com I decide to follow Deadman to use 腦. Both (first) characters mean 'brain', but mandarintools refers to 腦 as traditional character of 脑 (which differs from 脳).--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

SI-9 肩貞

Although Deadman uses 肩真, I will follow other sources to call it 肩貞 — virtuous, chaste, pure instead of real, actual, true, genuine: "Die Wandlungsphasen der traditionellen chinesischen Medizin" by Noll & Lorenzen, this acupuncture point list, japanese Wikipedia small intestine point list.--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of introductory text

This article is intended to be a list of some acupuncture points by their names and "international numbering scheme". A discussion on the nature of these points (e.g. their physiological equivalents) is not scope of this list and will be removed. Such discussion is expected to take place in the article on acupuncture itself. Hence this paragraph will be removed.

Also this list will not provide any location information of the points. Hence there is no need to put an explanation of the cun/sunn measurement system here. This should be mentioned in an in depth description of e.g. acupuncture. So this paragraph will be removed too.

The introductory paragraph will be adopted.

I should write some text on the grouping of points according to (main) meridians, which is not the only criteria by which the set of acupuncture points has been organized and systematised. And there are more points than these, which are said to belong to one of the twelve/fourteen main meridians--Nicolasnicolas (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To avoid violating NPOV, remember to keep the mention that the very existence of acupuncture points is disputed. Note it's not disputed within mainstream science (there the lack of evidence of existence is enough), but only between science and believers in alternative medicine. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Brangifer. I have an overview of the published studies that have been done in order to identify acupuncture meridians and acupuncture points. There are findings that can't be argued, however none of these results are able to explain what acupuncture claims to be able to achieve. However I reply with a much easier question to you. I am not a native english speaker. And I never read the term 'mainstream science' by now. So I'm not able to differentiate your use of the terms 'science' and 'mainstream science'. Please hint me on what you refer to as 'mainstream science' and to what as 'science'. Thank you! --Nicolasnicolas (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Complete revision of the article.

Finally I submitted my work on the list of acupuncture points. There are some issues with the article I do not know how to cope with better than I did. How should I indicate the reliability of a name better than I did (question mark). Is the reference to the sources okay? How should the ongoing process on further checking data be displayed other than by the 'Underconstruction' template?

And finally: do you have any other suggestion on how to improve the article further? --Nicolasnicolas (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Small Intestine Acupuncture Meridian.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Small Intestine Acupuncture Meridian.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Anatomical and physiological basis

Thanks Brangifer for your addition concerning the anatomical and histological basis of acupuncture points. And thanks Merriels for your contribution of accepted English names for the list. I suggest removing the addition by Brangifer pending discussion and reaching consensus. Here is the addition concerning anatomy and histology proposed by Brangifer:

There is no known or commonly agreed anatomical or histological basis in western medicine for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians, and belief in them is controversial.

We need to consider whether these are appropriate sources (especially since they are all a bit dated), and to be careful to represent the sources faithfully with NPOV. Let's start with quotes from the sources:

Napadow V et al. 2008. The status and future of acupuncture mechanism research. J Altern Complement Med 14(7): 861–869.

The anatomical and physiologic nature of the acupuncture point/meridian remains elusive. Our limited understanding, however, is not for lack of existing hypotheses. Numerous physiologic and anatomical associations have been proposed within the literature.

Ernst E. 2006. Acupuncture–a critical analysis. Journal of Internal Medicine 259.2: 125-137.

There is some tantalizing [e.g. 32, 33], but no compelling scientific evidence for the existence of either meridians or acupuncture points [29]. Different authors disagree about their location or number. The evidence from histological studies or assessments of electrical conductance is unconvincing [29]. Some researchers have suggested that the collagen content within connective tissue imparts electrical conductive properties which correspond to meridians [34]. If one believed modern texts on acupuncture, there would be no space on our body surface which is not an acupuncture point [35].

National Institutes of Health. 1997. Acupuncture: consensus development conference statement.

Despite considerable efforts to understand the anatomy and physiology of the "acupuncture points," the definition and characterization of these points remain controversial. Even more elusive is the scientific basis of some of the key traditional Eastern medical concepts such as the circulation of Qi, the meridian system, and other related theories, which are difficult to reconcile with contemporary biomedical information but continue to play an important role in the evaluation of patients and the formulation of treatment in acupuncture.

Here is a view from a more recent source:

Zhou F, Huang D, YingXia. 2010. Neuroanatomic Basis of Acupuncture Points. pp 32-80 In: Xia Y et al. (eds). Acupuncture Therapy for Neurological Diseases. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-10857-0.

Acupoints, the sites on the body for acupuncture therapy, have relatively special structure that receives the acupuncture signals. Anatomically, acupoints have abundant nerves, muscles, vessels, and tendon. Histologically, there are various kinds of free nerve endings, receptors, Ruffini corpuscles, Meissner corpuscles, Krause corpuscles, lamellated corpuscles, and muscle spindle around the acupoints. The complexity of these tissues are presumed to be responsible for the acupuncture sensation at acupoints. Type II and III fibers of the afferent nerves may mediate the afferent transmission of the acupuncture signals. In the central nervous system (CNS), the spinal cord, brainstem, hypothalamus, thalamus, and cerebral cortex integrate the afferent signals of the acupuncture and form regulatory outputs via afferent pathways. In addition, there exists a strong relationship between the meridian-points and viscera in terms of nerve connection. The mechanism underlying the interaction between the meridian-points and viscera is related to the segmental innervations and convergence of the somatic and autonomic nerves at the same spinal segments. Although there have been numerous theories concerning meridians and points, we believe that the peripheral nervous system forms the main basis of acupoints as well as afferent and efferent pathways of the acupuncture signals.

Another more recent source:

Bai Y et al. 2011. Review of evidence suggesting that the fascia network could be the anatomical basis for acupoints and meridians in the human body. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Abstract: The anatomical basis for the concept of meridians in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has not been resolved. This paper reviews the evidence supporting a relationship between acupuncture points/meridians and fascia. The reviewed evidence supports the view that the human body's fascia network may be the physical substrate represented by the meridians of TCM. Specifically, this hypothesis is supported by anatomical observations of body scan data demonstrating that the fascia network resembles the theoretical meridian system in salient ways, as well as physiological, histological, and clinical observations. This view represents a theoretical basis and means for applying modern biomedical research to examining TCM principles and therapies, and it favors a holistic approach to diagnosis and treatment.

TheProfessor (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Before I comment further, I'd like to make it clear that I was restoring content which had been in the article for a long time, but which was deleted twice without consensus, and lastly against my stated objections, so this discussion is needed. We don't delete longstanding, properly sourced content, without a discussion and agreement. Secondly, I am not against improvement in the wording. Nothing is set in stone. These wordings have been used on the various acupuncture articles as part of the requirements of NPOV. We can't let an article stand as a sales brochure stating only the POV of acupuncturists. Other POV exist in the scientific and scientific skeptic community, and they must also get their due.

I note that only Zhou, et al, actually state an opinion contrary to the skeptical opinion, without any evidence accepted by mainstream scientists. I may well be wrong, but IIRC, their research is very flawed, possibly without any controls and comparisons with non-acupoint areas, making their blanket statements of hypotheses as absolute fact rather dubious, to say the least. There is no caution at all in their statement, unlike Bai, yet the rest of mainstream science is definitely not so certain, and we lack statements about any confirmed existence from non acupuncture-believer sources.

Bai makes clearly hypothetical and honest speculations ("suggesting", "could", "not been resolved", "the view that...may be", "this hypothesis", "a theoretical basis"), without any directly false or unproven claims, which clearly implies that they recognize that no proof exists, as yet. That's an honest appraisal. Zhou, OTOH, is questionable in their over top claims which only believers would make. Textbooks don't back up those claims. I have studied anatomy three times in English ((college, Physician Assistant, Physical Therapist (two years of anatomy for the last)), and in Danish, Swedish, and German. Nowhere was there any mention of meridians or acupuncture points. Only in small textbooks for alternative medicine believers will one find them stated as if they actually existed, and other odd things are also stated as if they existed, but no mainstream textbook confirms these claims.

What type of rewording would fit the first three sources best? There are other sources, which are not MEDRS compliant, which state clearly that belief in acupoints, meridians, and qi is pretty much delusional. They are the skeptical opinions of acupuncturists (!), and should be framed as such. Here is from one acupuncture, TCM, source (Bauer, L.Ac.), quoting noted acupuncture authorities:

"Of course, the existence of qi has never been demonstrated in any sort of scientifically acceptable manner and perhaps never will. Without being able to scientifically validate the existence of qi, the traditional rational for acupuncture and Chinese medicine will never receive modern science’s seal of approval no matter how many clinical trials show effectiveness in treating disease. The combination of mounting evidence of acupuncture’s clinical effectiveness together with an inability to scientifically validate its traditional rational has lead to a new and rapidly growing class of acupuncture supporter; those who acknowledge acupuncture’s clinical value while disavowing its traditional rational. This new breed of supporter is beginning to do more to undermine long-held notions about Chinese medicine than all the sceptics who doubted its effectiveness combined!" - Matthew Bauer

"Traditional Chinese acupuncture is an archaic procedure of inserting needles through the skin over imaginary channels in accord with rules developed from pre-scientific superstition and numerological beliefs. New research has replaced this mystical sham medical procedure with a simple evidence-based no-needle treatment that stimulates motor points and nerve junctures and induces gene-expression of neurochemicals and activates brain areas important for healing. This is a scientifically based alternative to the previous metaphysical theories and magical rituals." - Dr. George Ulett

"The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes" (p. 14). - Felix Mann

"The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in [acupuncture] meridians." (p. 31). - Felix Mann

"The quote above regarding meridians is especially reflective of this authority’s turnabout when you consider Dr. Mann once authored a book titled “The Meridians of Acupuncture” that was once used as a text book in some acupuncture schools." - Matthew Bauer

"Dr. Mann is Founder and past President of the Medical Acupuncture Society (1959-1980) and was the first President of the British Medical Acupuncture Society (1980). Author of the first comprehensive English language acupuncture textbook “Acupuncture: The Ancient Chinese Art of Healing”, first published in 1962, as well as six other books on acupuncture. Following the numbering system developed by the French, Mann translated these terms into English which became the non-Chinese international system for identifying acupuncture points, i.e. “L.I.4” Dr. Mann has lectured in 15 countries and taught doctors from 45 countries. [Mann is] One of the West’s first proponents of traditional acupuncture,..." - Matthew Bauer

• All from: Matthew Bauer in "The Final Days of Traditional Beliefs? - Part One", Chinese Medicine Times, Vol 1 Issue 4 - Aug 2006 (The article is excellent reading, and very short.) For the curious, here is Bauer's website.

As you can see, Mann is THE preeminent authority on the subject of THIS article!

Since our various acupuncture articles are required by NPOV to include such POV, but the wording and sourcing varies from article to article, it would be nice to hammer out a consensus statement/disclaimer which could be used for all of them, using all the sources. This article is NOT the best place to do it. It would be more logical if we started a discussion at the main article, possibly as an RfC. The opinions of skeptical acupuncture researchers and scientific skeptics must be included, otherwise these articles state as blanket fact something that is definitely disputed. We can't leave them as sales brochures for acupuncture. So, shall we move this to Talk:Acupuncture and continue there?

Right now we have (at least) these places which touch on this issue:

• Acupuncture_point#Scientific_research
• Acupressure#Criticism_of_TCM_theory
• Acupuncture mentions this in the lead and other sections

Otherwise I very much appreciate the work which Merriels has done. It's a good improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, clarity of synthesis, and proposal to move the discussion to Talk:Acupuncture. I agree that is where discussion ultimately belongs. As for me, I can't participate sufficiently to do proper justice at this stage; but I can suggest wording for a consensus statement. I'm not keen on structuring this as scientific skeptic vs acupuncturist viewpoints, since most scientists and researchers, including those cited, use careful qualifiers. Let's start with something simple:

Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the anatomical and physiological basis for acupuncture points and meridians remains elusive and controversial.

TheProfessor (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A consideration: The statement and references belong primarily in body text, with a brief summary in the lead (if warranted). TheProfessor (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that that is the standard format. The body has primacy over the lead, and the lead only mentions content already found in the body, ergo the lead is duplicate content.

This is a list article, which may explain why we don't follow that format. There is no place in the body for discussion of such matters. The body consists strictly of the acupoints, except for the Nomenclature section, which is directly related and necessary for the rest of the content. As such, I see the lead as the only place for other explanatory content, and the "disclaimer" (for lack of a better term) is a requirement of NPOV and FRINGE, that we can't let unproven claims just stand alone. It must be made clear to the reader that the content is disputed. With conspiracy theory articles there is always content which makes it clear to the reader that they are reading unproven ideas.

What are your thoughts on this? Is there a better way to do it? Should we create a small section for this, and then use shorter mention in the lead? That is probably the best way to follow standard format. We could summarize it in one sentence, something like this: "The existence of acupuncture points, meridians, and qi are not recognized in western medicine, where belief in them is controversial." That would probably be enough for the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I understand the view that a "disclaimer" is needed. I'm not sure I agree, given that the content is clearly identified as describing a TCM system; that as far as I can see there are no unproven claims (this article only describes a standard list of acupuncture points); and content concerning health claims, scientific basis, and controversy is in other articles, where it belongs. Yes, a single sentence could be valuable to provide perspective concerning views of modern science and medicine, and controversy, so let's continue to pursue wording. I do not favor wording that emphasizes words like "existence" and "belief", since the TCM system exists and one does not have to adopt a belief in order to understand the system. The followng are possibilities for wording:

TCM concepts of acupuncture points, meridians, and qi do not translate readily to modern science and medicine.

Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the anatomical and physiological basis for acupuncture points and meridians remains elusive and controversial.

Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the modern scientific and medical basis for acupuncture points and meridians remains elusive and controversial.

Although unproven by the standards of modern science and medicine, the TCM system of acupuncture points and meridians forms the basis for acupuncture, acupressure, and related TCM health treatment.

TheProfessor (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi TheProfessor and Brangifer! I just found this page! Thank you SO much for your critical consideration here. I am brand new as an editor on Wikipedia, though of course I've enjoyed and donated to it for years. I will just finish out the English translation of point names, which is what I was looking for in the first place, and point any interested parties to the research of Helene Langevin on physiological correlates. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merriels (talk • contribs) 05:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, Merriels, and welcome as a new editor for Wikipedia! TheProfessor (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Merriels. It's good you found the talk page. There are things you need to learn quickly in order to function here, so here are some tips. Use talk pages. Every article and user page has one. Use the "watch" tab to place pages on your watchlist. Use your watchlist constantly. Use the "history" tab constantly, in fact use it before reading text or editing. Comments and revisions will occur in odd places, and you will not notice them if you don't carefully read the history. Also read the edit summaries, and always write some form of edit summary when you make any form of edit or comment, and always sign your comments with four tildes, but not your edits. When you make new comments or start a new section, they usually go at the bottom of the page. We work from top to bottom. Also use colons to indent your comments. To see how something was done, look at the code on a page when in the editing mode. That way you can learn how others do things. You can just look without making an edit. If you haven't saved yet, you can always "back out". That's the quickest way to learn. Then you can also ask other editors for help and advice. We're here to help you. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, it would be best to place any further discussion about getting started with Wikipedia editing on your own talk page. Yes, we're here to help you. TheProfessor (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please consider the following sources:

Waring B. 2012. Langevin explains emerging science of connective tissue. National Institutes of Health LXIV(24).

The rotation of acupuncture needles also produced these dynamic fibroblast responses as collagen fibers wrapped around the needle “like winding spaghetti around a fork.” (Collagen is the main component of connective tissue.) “This suggests that acupuncture can have the function of producing some static stretching of connective tissue.”

Chase S. 2013. In the world of acupuncture, Dr. Helene Langevin is such a celebrity that even the Chinese have taken notice of her quest to understand exactly how the ancient healing art works. The Boston Globe.

As far back as 300 BC, Chinese texts have described acupuncture and de qi, a reaction to the needling that’s thought to be important in achieving its therapeutic effect. During de qi, the patient usually experiences a slight ache in the area surrounding the needle, while the acupuncturist may feel the needle being grasped by the tissue – a tug often described as akin to a fish biting on a line. Langevin grabbed headlines when, in 2001, the Journal of Applied Physiology published the results of a study in which she and her colleagues quantified de qi’s biomechanical component, or needle grasp, by measuring the force necessary to pull an acupuncture needle out of the skin. Her findings showed something else: Gently manipulating the needles back and forth or twisting them increased the grasp significantly. Since then, Langevin’s research has proved that the connective tissue that winds around acupuncture needles – much like spaghetti wadded around a fork – is responsible for needle grasp. Further study has revealed that needle manipulation transmits a signal to fibroblasts, the cells that make up such tissue, causing them to spread and flatten. "The needle is, in fact, stretching the tissue from the inside," Langevin explains. "The tissue is not just being pulled; it’s actively responding to the stimulus."

Next month, using needling and ultrasound imaging, Langevin and her team will begin to test her newest hypothesis – that connective-tissue abnormalities occur more frequently in patients with low back pain than in others. "So far, we don’t know that there’s anything wrong with the connective tissue in people with low back pain," she says. "But if we determine the winding is abnormal, that would be a hint that the connective tissue may cause or perpetuate this pain."

Langevin’s attempt to elucidate the mechanism of acupuncture by looking at the cellular changes in connective tissue is novel. "There are Western scientists who think it’s all about nerve stimulation," says Peter Wayne, research director at the New England School of Acupuncture in Watertown. "But she’s opened up a whole new model." A West-meets-East trailblazer, Langevin recently presented research at scientific meetings in Barcelona and Munich, among a number of foreign cities, and is scheduled to lecture soon at the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Her intellectual curiosity is born of personal experience. During her residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital in 1985, Langevin sought acupuncture for nerve-injury pain after exhausting all that Western medicine had to offer. After three months of treatments on her leg, her pain was gone. "I was intrigued by this strange way of looking at the anatomy in terms of the meridians," she says of the 12 main energy channels that acupuncturists believe run through the body. "The fact that I got better was almost irrelevant in my decision to study it."

Her fellow researchers applaud that decision. "Helene has single-handedly rescued acupuncture research from the dead end it had reached because of findings that had been inconclusive or contradictory," Kaptchuk says. "I don’t know if Helene is going to solve the acupuncture riddle, but she has the best chance of anybody."

Yang ES, Li P, Nilius B, Li G. 2011. Ancient Chinese medicine and mechanistic evidence of acupuncture physiology. Invited Review. Pflügers Archiv: European Journal of Physiology.

Abstract: Acupuncture has been widely used in China for three millennia as an art of healing. Yet, its physiology is not yet understood. The current interest in acupuncture started in 1971. Soon afterward, extensive research led to the concept of neural signaling with possible involvement of opioid peptides, glutamate, adenosine and identifying responsive parts in the central nervous system. In the last decade scientists began investigating the subject with anatomical and molecular imaging. It was found that mechanical movements of the needle, ignored in the past, appear to be central to the method and intracellular calcium ions may play a pivotal role. In this review, we trace the technique of clinical treatment from the first written record about 2,200 years ago to the modern time. The ancient texts have been used to introduce the concepts of yin, yang, qi, de qi, and meridians, the traditional foundation of acupuncture. We explore the sequence of the physiological process, from the turning of the needle, the mechanical wave activation of calcium ion channel to beta-endorphin secretion. By using modern terminology to re-interpret the ancient texts, we have found that the 2nd century b.c. physiologists were meticulous investigators and their explanation fits well with the mechanistic model derived from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and confocal microscopy. In conclusion, the ancient model appears to have withstood the test of time surprisingly well confirming the popular axiom that the old wine is better than the new.

Conclusion: A crucial difference between the present and past interpretations is to examine acupuncture as a mechanical activation and signaling process. With this change, it appears all the ancient Chinese concepts can be re-interpreted and harmonized with the latest finding in medical imaging, cell biology and physiology. In short, we do not have to throw away the 2,500 years clinical ideas while preserving modern judgment based on scientific method and technology. The initial action of acupuncture appears to be mechanical and not neural or electrical. In any case, the mechanistic function provides a model to explain acupuncture. It can be applied to traditional Chinese acupuncture, Korean or Japanese acupuncture, and sham acupuncture with its measured effectiveness consistent with the observation of the ancient medical establishment. Separated from the central nervous system, we speculate that the mechanism introduces a separate channel of cellular communications with calcium waves playing the role of the second messenger. The mechanical wave, the acoustic shear wave and the calcium wave turn out to have come from the same source, and these different forms of waves appear ideally suited to describe what the ancient Chinese called “qi”, the mysterious, invisible, untranslatable and unknowable ingredient of life.

TheProfessor (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brangifer, Merriels, and other editors wishing to improve this article. What are your thoughts about the following possibilities for wording and the European Journal of Physiology reference above?

1. TCM concepts of acupuncture points, meridians, and qi do not translate readily to modern science and medicine.
2. Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the anatomical and physiological basis for acupuncture points and meridians remains elusive and controversial.
3. Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the modern scientific and medical basis for acupuncture points and meridians remains elusive and controversial.
4. Although unproven by the standards of modern science and medicine, the TCM system of acupuncture points and meridians forms the basis for acupuncture, acupressure, and related TCM health treatment.

TheProfessor (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Your wordings are a step in the right direction. Let me number them. I tend to favor number four, but others might read them differently and favor others. The article is interesting. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Merriels could you provide input? You provided discussion elsewhere in which you mentioned that professional acupuncturists are readily able to palpate points (what is a good source for this?), expressed concern about NPOV and whether the sources cited in the current article are up to date, and suggested how to locate other sources (some of which are now listed above). My understanding is that in practice points are located by anatomical landmarks, relative body positions (measured in the cun system), tactile feedback, and feedback from the patient (reported sensation). TheProfessor (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a separate "Locations and basis" heading, separating detailed sourced content from the lead to be consistent with standard Wikipedia article format. I agree that we should keep this article short and clean, since it is meant to be a supplementary list. I suggest the following:

• Reach consensus and add well-sourced summary sentence about anatomical and physiological (scientific and medical) basis, something like "Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the anatomical and physiological basis for acupuncture points and meridians remains elusive.''
• Add well-sourced summary sentence about hypotheses concerning the basis, something like "These hypotheses include neural signaling; mechanical activation; with possible involvement of opioid peptides, glutamate, adenosine; correspondence to responsive parts in the central nervous system; and with possible involvement of fascia."
• Add well-sourced summary sentence about common practice, something like "In practice, acupuncture points are located by a combination of anatomical landmarks, palpation, and feedback from the patient concerning pain or other sensation, using a traditional method of position according to body proportion."
• Integrate references with inline citations in proper locations.
• Basic edit.
• Rewrite lead as required.

TheProfessor (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a constructive way forward. It can always be tweaked. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, Merriels, and other editors wishing to improve this article. please offer input concerning the following proposed text:

Although many hypotheses have been proposed, the anatomical and physiological basis for acupuncture points and meridians remains elusive.(1) Hypotheses include neural and mechanical signaling; with possible involvement of opioid peptides, glutamate, and adenosine; correspondence to responsive parts in the central nervous system; involvement of connective tissue (fascia); or mechanical wave activation of calcium ion channel to beta-endorphin secretion.(2) In practice, acupuncture points are located by a combination of anatomical landmarks, palpation, and feedback from the patient (reported sensation), using a traditional method of proportional measurement.(3)

1. Napadow V et al. 2008. The status and future of acupuncture mechanism research. J Altern Complement Med 14(7): 861–869.

2. Yang ES, Li P, Nilius B, Li G. 2011. Ancient Chinese medicine and mechanistic evidence of acupuncture physiology. Invited Review. Pflügers Archiv: European Journal of Physiology.

3.Deadman, P, Baker K, Al-Khafaji, M. 2007. A Manual of Acupuncture, 2nd Edition. Journal of Chinese Medicine Publications. ISBN 978-0951054659.

TheProfessor (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent tables

The first table has Code, Chinese Name, English, Korean 한글, and Vietnamese, then the second table adds the transliteration and Pinyin columns. Next table, and Korean and Pinyin are switched. I'm not sure, it just kind of bothered me. Awesomecat713 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)