Sharon sprained her ankle while playing tennis on a Sunday afternoon. Now, three months later, she makes an appointment to see me. "I've consulted two doctors and my chiropractor. I've had six weeks of physical therapy. The pain medications are destroying my stomach. I can't get into my shoes and I have been essentially disabled for the last three months." I examine her, East and West. Her ankle is still swollen, much stiffer than it needs to be this long after an injury. Sharon has spent precious time and money, all for meager results.
I pull out my needles and arrange them "into a circuit" along her injury site, above and below, and even on her hand and ear. I see her three times and she is back into her pumps; after four times all her pain is gone, and after the sixth treatment she no longer needs me. Three weeks of twice a week treatments. Had I seen Sharon within the first few days of her injury, we might have obtained the same results over two to three treatments, not exceeding a 5 to 10 day period.
Most of us are used to seeking "the standard treatment" first and only look for "the alternative treatment" after everything else has failed. Why do we think of this rather recent 20th century approach as the "standard" or the "orthodox"?
Back to Main Page