Acupuncture Therapy : Acupuncture Moxibustion

Acupuncture Therapy : Acupuncture Moxibustion


Now that we’ve had the acupuncture needles
in Johnnie here, working on his back pain, we want to add a little extra effort to it
and do a little bit better job, so we’re going to use what’s called moxibustion. And there’s
a number of different ways to utilize moxibustion. This is one of the more interesting ones.
If you ever seen the old Steven Segal movie, he had actually moxibustion on the needles.
So, what we actually do is put a small amount of moxi on the needle. We’re going to do that
on two of them where he’s getting some discomfort. And that one we need to adjust a little bit.
There we go, I think we’re going to do the same to that one. And once we get the moxibustion
on the needle, we’re going to light those so that they smolder, and he’s barely going
to feel anything. It’s just going to be a slight warming sensation with these moxibustion
points on these two needles to strengthen his bones and strengthen his back. The nice
thing about moxi, it’s very gentle. It’s not a lot of discomfort at all for the patient,
and it helps to move the blood and deal with stagnation which is what causes pain in many
cases. So, these will take about three to five minutes to burn through, and so he’ll
gently start to see a slight increase in the warmth, and always the acupuncturist will
monitor what’s going on in case it’s discomfort and gets too warm for anybody. So, as you
can see these are burning slowly. And in about another minute or so, he’ll start to get some,
a feeling of warmth in those and a little extra stimulation but it’s a pleasant stimulation
that those give. So, we can use this for a variety of different treatments, from anything
from digestive problems to pain.

62 Comments

  • usfdude says:

    quack..

  • SolarAbyss says:

    oink

  • DontKnowJackSquat says:

    tweet

  • crew412 says:

    Many health benefits with cupping go to propheticmedicine co cc

  • ficklemcpickle says:

    Fuck that, just give me a syringe full of morphine and I'm good.

  • kanayumikumo says:

    acupuncture on the body is considered low class treatment, that guy might jab his lungs….its the arms and legs that should be poked…lots of horrible drs out there…haha

  • Dave Krug says:

    dude, these ads are pissing me off…

  • Łukasz Waloch says:

    jab his lungs?How stupid can you be?Stop trying to be smart.Dont talk about stuff you know nothing about.

  • jns124able says:

    @midnitelickcrew no proven benefits with cupping. Go to any credible web site.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able experience it… i can show a blind man something, doesn't mean he'll see it. the west is blind and chooses to remain blind to things. but you can't argue with results. pain that's no longer a problem is a big result. Chinese people being overall healthier despite the intense amount of pollution in their environment is another thing we can't explain. There must be a reason, it's not stupid luck. Why do we choose not to see? Is the U.S. is the model of health or balance? Probably not.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 You really complicate things when you mix metaphor and actual reality in the same argument, regarding blindness. Anyways, you are mistaken… Im afraid I can argue with results. In medicine it is called peer review. It is part of the scientific process and evidence based practice…if acupuncture isnt up to the scrutiny then it should perhaps remain where it is, outside of mainstream evidence based practice.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able mixing metaphors? how much is peer review worth when the blind is leading the blind? acupuncturists have their own peers and their own peer reviews through medical journals just like western medicine does. you still haven't answered why the chinese are generally healthier compared to westerners in nearly every measurable statistic. you can't expect to approach acupuncture/cupping/guasha etc… without at least learning about it first. the same is true for western medicine.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 not mixing metaphors…mixing metaphor with reality. I havent answered your question about the causality for your proposed better health (how do you define health for this purpose? lack of disease? life expectancy? mortality or morbidity rates?) because it hasnt not been established and if you say you have, then it would seem you arent as rigorous with your scientific method as western medicine. It may be because of genetic tendencies. we cant say. …

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 Let me ask you…although you are assuming I dont know anything about chinese alternatives…what do you think I DONT know that is critical to accepting its authenticity? I assume you are inferring that western medicine is bunk and hence "blind leading the blind". That is so true…double blind clinical trials have honesty and rigor built in to it, removing bias and maximizing evidential quality. Peer review is good in that it further removes bias. and i do know medicine well.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able i don't think you know that there exists over 1500 years of case study that modern people are capable of reading. not true in the west, nearly nobody can read middle english. when i was using the term blind is that western medicine has furthered disease as well as health. we make stronger meds, diseases get stronger, we reply with stronger meds, and the cycle continues. western medicine isn't bunk, but it's not the only way. it's great at discounting, but it's bad at finding.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able i don't know which medicine you know well. but let's pull breast cancer statistics and compare. let's up the top 10 cancer killers in america and china and see where they differ. western medicine doesn't really acknowledge that doctors and hospitals are 15% of someone's healthcare. it's created a false sense of security among regular people. 85% of anybody's health is lifestyle. Food, drink, exercise, stress, etc… On bias, we pretend to remove bias, but we all really have it.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 Actually nick, double blind control studies eliminate bias by design…such as the bias found in 1500 years of case studies. Case study and anecdotal evidence are among the lowest regarded forms in science, rating only above professional experience, which is the lowest. I dont know which western medicine cirriculum youve been examining, if any, but the one I am in stresses non pharmaceutical approaches first, so you are mistaken, at least in Canada's cirricula.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able Actually, they don't. Nothing you set up will neutralize somebody's bias. At the end of the day all of these things are based on observation made by humans who all have biases. You should know that signs are what the healthcare practitioner observes and symptoms are what the patient reports. Eastern medicine has SOAP notes. Same in the east as in the west. Observe, theorize, test, revise, repeat. They treated TB, dysentery, and all sorts of diseases with acupuncture,herbs, cupping.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 Actually they do. Do you know what a double blinded trial is? please look it up.AT the end of the day, data is often collected by people who do not know what the purpose of the study is.I dont think you are speaking as someone familiar with study design just by the vague general claims you seem to be making…=/ It is actually impossible to carry out double blinded trials in disciplines like acupuncture and chiro:please,take a look at what double blind design is. I use SOAP notes.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able No. When you can separate a person from their bias, then you have what you're looking for. We come close. Please look up the word bias.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 Hey nick, seriously, Im not just trying to be argumentative. I know what bias is, which is why I can say it is dealt with the best in double blinded study design. Double blinded control trials eliminate bias. Why dont you understand that? Do you know what this trial design is? It blinds the person being studies AND blinds the person doing the study so that their bias may not affect the study results. You sound sincere, but you havent had a lot of experience with these terms

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able I know exactly what a double blind study is. jns… even if the bias of the researchers and participants is taken away because they don't know what they are a part of, the decision-maker and coordinator does. All these results have to come together at some place. The interpreter of the data has the bias by virtue of being human. it's really good data, i wouldn't toss it. but i'll take 1500 years of people describing different types of illness experience as being solid enough too.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 nope, you havent been involved in research much Im guessing.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able so you're trying to tell me that there are people out there without bias. period, end of sentence. this is where we disagree. old world experience was often false, but it was true enough for people to survive plagues and epidemics. they had their bias, but their experience is in the real world facing the diseases that were killing everybody. we're better at it now, but we also threw out the baby with the bathwater. btw, what research are you involved in that's not pharmaceutical?

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 I said that double blind trials eliminate bias by design. I didnt say people eliminate their own bias. Btw…anecdotal stories and tradition are weak forms of evidence. Do you know how many western educated people swaer that their guru has magical powers? Im not involved in pharmaceuticals, Im in medicine. I urge you to read what double blind control trials and bias are. In these trials, data is processed and there are confidence intervals, p numbers etc. Youre wrong sir.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able I agreed with you that double blinds eliminate group own bias, but somewhere this raw data has to be synthesized to mean something. It's the root of the bias that matters, it's not all bad. I know many people fall for frauds but you have to accept the anecdotes are part of the human experience and how practitioners and patients communicate. They're people not machines. We can't measure pain but it's our driving factor. They'll avoid you if there's no pain and they're feeling fine.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 anecdotes ARE part of the human subjective experience…they are, however, exceedingly poor sources for evidence. (as Ive explained) I am not referring to frauds. Im referring to those who are sincere as well…they are just as unreliable. Citing even centuries of anecdotal stories holds very little scientific water. Not to be rude but I question your ability to evaluate what you read since you somehow got from my posts that I suggested there are "people without bias".

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able you made a claim that double blinds are completely without bias. that people inject their own personal bias and it's present. I'm talking about evidence recorded from medical practitioners who used trial and error to figure out what worked. not stories. experience from educated people who used their version of a scientific method, that's quite a bit away from anecdotal.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 reports from medical practitioners you are describing are called "case studies" and again, rank low on the quality of evidence scale. They are highly prone to individual bias, and NOT as far (in terms of evidential quality) from anecdotal as you might like to believe. Im making the claim that double blind studies are the highest order of evidence available to science, and I will use THAT over anecdotes, tradition, and case studies every time.

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able who does these rankings? double blind evidence might be the highest, but it's also the least available to everybody. we don't have many options but to try something, judge it ourselves, adjust it, do it again, and so on. How does tradition come about? People tried things, got hurt/killed, figured what worked, adjusted, did it again. Tradition is dangerous when it's blind and rigid, but if you mess with what works you might end up dead. Maybe the double blind is the new tradition…

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 scientists have made these rankings. How is it that you are unaware of these rankings and then go on to discuss/critique evidence qualities in some detail? I get the feeling you are flying by the seat of your pants on these issues we are discussing. There are tons of double blind trials done over decades…its not a patented design. Its NOT the least available. Your closing suggestion that double blind is maybe the new tradition is baseless and intellectually dishonest.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 Incidentally, trial and error (what youve described) is archaic and not efficient anymore. What you consider "messing with what works" another might call looking for improvement, which is indeed what science does. Incidentally, tradition comes about from people accepting the status quo and NOT seeking improvement.

  • puddiah11 says:

    @jns124able they lesson bias, but dont eliminate it. Besides, the Chinese have taken great leaps from the medicinal standpoint, moving more toward what western societies like America and Canada are practicing. You, or the other person you're arguing with, can't attribute acupuncture as the sole reason why the Chinese are healthier. That wouldn't come close

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able I'm not a scientist. I'm speaking in layman terms. I'm not flying by the seat of my pants. My experience merely comes from elsewhere and has served me well. For your regular person, the option for a double blind doesn't exist. The double blind is the new tradition because it's becoming the status quo. Nobody will trust anything else, including their own experience. Often that's what makes a doctor good or great is experience. This is the trend. It's not dishonest, it's my observation

  • jns124able says:

    @puddiah11 all study designs have their advantages and limitations, I still contend the vast superiority of double blind trials is why it is the highest quality of evidence available. The person I am arguing with has an agenda to support chinese medicine. My point is there is not a strong empirical argument for the efficacy of some of these methods (acupuncture etc). If the evidence became available, Id accept the supported claims. I dont know why Chinese are "healthier".

  • nick0424 says:

    @jns124able Trial and error may be archaic and inefficient, but is it effective? That's the important question. What's a regular person suppose to do? Tradition comes about from a set of principles that worked at one time or another. I agree they need to be retested and re-evaluated maybe improved and at other times slowly changed. Tradition comes about from people seeking security and safety, NOT because they're lazy.

  • nick0424 says:

    @puddiah11 The Chinese hospitals are half western and half eastern. They see that western medicine works and they accept it. They also know that their own medicine works. The Chinese would attribute their health to a balanced life and not to any particular sort of medicine. They see imbalance as sickness. They tend to have better diets and don't have sedentary lifestyles. They've started becoming unhealthy with their environment and implementing western traditions like chain stores and fast food

  • nick0424 says:

    @puddiah11 In essence, I agree with you.

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 I say it is ineffective given that it is time consuming and not systematic. Any information garnered is by chance. I would recommend a regular person turn to the evidence…not trial and error. Save time, money, effort, and possibly suffering. Im losing a sense of what we are debating here…just definitions of study design?

  • jns124able says:

    @nick0424 no worries Nick. Double blind IS becoming the most sought after form of evidence because of its quality. Personally, I will trust those trials before my OWN experience since I know my experience is too small of a sample and not corrected for confounding variables (age, demographic etc)…One possibility for a healthier china with its alternative medicines: they die when ill. For example, we have more heart failure, because our patients survive their heart attacks to have the disease.

  • puddiah11 says:

    @jns124able so then dont base your argument on them being healthier because of acupuncture when really it is several reasons that are much more compelling

  • jns124able says:

    @puddiah11 I think you are either posting to the wrong guy or you might have misunderstood who's taking what position. Ive been challenging acupuncture based on evidence or lack thereof. Someone else said the chinese are healthier. I made the point that westerners MAY appear less healthy because of medical treatments that save lives but leave people with disease, whereas they may simply die in other regions. I dont know the answer. But I agree that health is complex and multifactorial.

  • puddiah11 says:

    @puddiah11 ya i said that i didnt no who was on what side, but im sure the other guy can see it, so it doesnt matter

  • DonaldTrump says:

    mmm marshmellows

  • Melissa SK says:

    roarr

  • Kyuukura says:

    neigh

  • JerrizleMcYo says:

    brawk

  • 133caboose says:

    fuck

  • Gage Webster says:

    Quack

  • horses4555 says:

    Holy This looks painful…

  • Athenathe SheWolf says:

    *whale song*

  • teamCClemon says:

    baah!

  • ☽ аиаѕтаsіо ☾ says:

    sssss–*boom*

  • mellasone says:

    thanks for the upload, great video

  • BOB LOBLAW says:

    what up with the animal sounds

  • vudufly says:

    hee-haw

  • Christopher Pam says:

    quack

    (see what I did there?)

  • GaiusGaiusGaius says:

    nnnnnaaaayyyyy

  • Thaddeus Blaze says:

    Hmm, been a few years since anyone commented on this, but I can say that these people don't know the effects of acupuncture since there isn't as much available information back then as there is now. Acupuncture focuses on the pressure points of the body. The body is made of multiple pressure points that regulate and stimulate certain parts of the body. Overstimulation can cause problems, but having a weak/injured part of the body may require stimulation in order to function back to normal. Acupuncture is a guide to make these points work properly. In hindsight, it works more by balancing organs and the internal body. It's similar to a chi practitioner using their chi to regulate and stimulate their body to promote overall health. Both tactics promote the body's internal ability to recover. This is eastern medicine of doing things. It's much slower in hindsight because it focuses on the recovery of the organ's ability. Afterwards, the organ can heal the body by itself. The difference between western and eastern medicine is that western medicine cuts directly to the root of the problem and removes the problem. However this doesn't mean the damaged organ will instantly work again. It will take time to recover. In some cases, mild symptoms is more suited for western medicine to take care of. Prolonged chronic illnesses may be better for eastern medicine to take care of.
    Basically, breaking this down:
    Western medicine cuts to the problem and removes it, but it doesn't recover the injured organ itself. The organ must recover on its own, or gets pills to regenerate faster. Problem's removed, but still has a recovery period in the end.
    Eastern medicine empowers the organ and lets the organ fix the problem itself. Once the problem is gone, everything is fine. It just takes more time for the initial empowerment and purifying effect to kick in, so it's not as visible.
    Hence, sometimes for western medicine, severe and prolonged damage may be irreversible and irreparable, even though the problem has been removed. For eastern medicine, it might be impossible to remove it with simply strengthening the body itself. Sometimes, nothing may happen or a dampened effect will happen. One can argue that both is equally as good as the other and benefits when they are used together.

    For the most part, this is an oversimplification/overview of how these types differ. There's too much to cover for specifics. Oh, and as for poisons/toxins, both types of medicine target the root problem (the toxin) first.

  • Song T says:

    maybe you should burn the moxa from the bottom. Not from the top

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *