User talk:Herbxue: Difference between revisions
→Gloves: reply |
→Gloves: competence |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:::::::: Sure, but doctors and legislators and acupuncturists all recognize the difference in risk between surgery or venipuncture and acupuncture - the vector of the acupuncture needle is so much smaller than that of a hollow needle that even with gross negligence the risk of infection is still low. There's a reason we don't need to prep with iodine or wear gloves. Simple hand washing and cleaning of the site, and use of a single-use pre-sterilized needle are enough to keep infection incidence almost non-existent in the states. In the case of poorly vascularized tissues or lymphedema we avoid needling. Its not rocket science, its just simple universal precautions, and its effective at controlling risk.[[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue#top|talk]]) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::: Sure, but doctors and legislators and acupuncturists all recognize the difference in risk between surgery or venipuncture and acupuncture - the vector of the acupuncture needle is so much smaller than that of a hollow needle that even with gross negligence the risk of infection is still low. There's a reason we don't need to prep with iodine or wear gloves. Simple hand washing and cleaning of the site, and use of a single-use pre-sterilized needle are enough to keep infection incidence almost non-existent in the states. In the case of poorly vascularized tissues or lymphedema we avoid needling. Its not rocket science, its just simple universal precautions, and its effective at controlling risk.[[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue#top|talk]]) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::::::: See [[special pleading]]. Bored now. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
::::::::: See [[special pleading]]. Bored now. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::: You are the one engaging in special pleading by ignoring the facts and applying your own desire to "right great wrongs" based on an irrational dislike of a subject you are not familiar enough with to edit with competence.[[User:Herbxue|Herbxue]] ([[User talk:Herbxue#top|talk]]) 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:32, 6 January 2017
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
TestingHerbxue (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Sandbox for Acu Mechanisms Section
Moved to User:Herbxue/Acupuncture mechanisms
new sandbox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herbxue/SandboxLiuBin#New_Article:_Liu_Bin
Sandbox
As consensus has not been reached, the article should remain in the original state. I restored it to that state. See wp:consensus. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I saw a bold edit that I supported, but more discussion is needed. I will not revert a second time. Herbxue (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Herbxue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Gloves
Nobody disputes that acupuncturists don't understand sterile technique. That's the point. Not understanding it doesn't make it any less the point... Guy (Help!) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are really editing aggressively lately, what's the beef? L.Ac's practice clean needle technique, not sterile technique, with very few adverse reactions (not counting PT's or others doing "dry needling") You are pointing out a non-issue just to pile on negatives. Did an acupuncturist do something mean to you or something? Herbxue (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that it's inadequate. When penetrating the skin, sterile technique is the standard of care. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not for acupuncture, which has its own laws and regulations that work just fine to protect people. Most adverse reactions have been from unlicensed people performing needling. If you want to convince the states that license acupuncture that they should adopt sterile technique as standard of care, go ahead. Until then, recognize what standard of care actually is.Herbxue (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am fully aware that acupuncture thinks it is different. In fact, a fair number of acupuncturists don't believe in the germ theory of disease at all. Acupuncturists' views on what is appropriate sterile technique are as irrelevant as Bernard Madoff's ideas on financial regulation. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'm talking about actual laws and the accepted standards of a well-established profession with an enviable safety record. You are talking about your own opinions.Herbxue (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ever heard of "legislative alchemy"? The legal system has nothing to do with science. In some US states, there are laws preventing medical associations from disciplining doctors form using dangeorus treatments for a fake diasease. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but doctors and legislators and acupuncturists all recognize the difference in risk between surgery or venipuncture and acupuncture - the vector of the acupuncture needle is so much smaller than that of a hollow needle that even with gross negligence the risk of infection is still low. There's a reason we don't need to prep with iodine or wear gloves. Simple hand washing and cleaning of the site, and use of a single-use pre-sterilized needle are enough to keep infection incidence almost non-existent in the states. In the case of poorly vascularized tissues or lymphedema we avoid needling. Its not rocket science, its just simple universal precautions, and its effective at controlling risk.Herbxue (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- See special pleading. Bored now. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are the one engaging in special pleading by ignoring the facts and applying your own desire to "right great wrongs" based on an irrational dislike of a subject you are not familiar enough with to edit with competence.Herbxue (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- See special pleading. Bored now. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, but doctors and legislators and acupuncturists all recognize the difference in risk between surgery or venipuncture and acupuncture - the vector of the acupuncture needle is so much smaller than that of a hollow needle that even with gross negligence the risk of infection is still low. There's a reason we don't need to prep with iodine or wear gloves. Simple hand washing and cleaning of the site, and use of a single-use pre-sterilized needle are enough to keep infection incidence almost non-existent in the states. In the case of poorly vascularized tissues or lymphedema we avoid needling. Its not rocket science, its just simple universal precautions, and its effective at controlling risk.Herbxue (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ever heard of "legislative alchemy"? The legal system has nothing to do with science. In some US states, there are laws preventing medical associations from disciplining doctors form using dangeorus treatments for a fake diasease. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'm talking about actual laws and the accepted standards of a well-established profession with an enviable safety record. You are talking about your own opinions.Herbxue (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am fully aware that acupuncture thinks it is different. In fact, a fair number of acupuncturists don't believe in the germ theory of disease at all. Acupuncturists' views on what is appropriate sterile technique are as irrelevant as Bernard Madoff's ideas on financial regulation. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not for acupuncture, which has its own laws and regulations that work just fine to protect people. Most adverse reactions have been from unlicensed people performing needling. If you want to convince the states that license acupuncture that they should adopt sterile technique as standard of care, go ahead. Until then, recognize what standard of care actually is.Herbxue (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that it's inadequate. When penetrating the skin, sterile technique is the standard of care. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are really editing aggressively lately, what's the beef? L.Ac's practice clean needle technique, not sterile technique, with very few adverse reactions (not counting PT's or others doing "dry needling") You are pointing out a non-issue just to pile on negatives. Did an acupuncturist do something mean to you or something? Herbxue (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)