Massive Head Scourge and Acupuncture

Massive Head Scourge and Acupuncture

I am old school. A germ theory kind of guy. Mumps, as an example, is due to the Mumps virus, a Paramyxovirus that likes to infect the parotid glands and occasionally other organs. There is no treatment but tincture time.

There are other, more curious, supposed etiologies for mumps:

Mumps is caused by invasion of the body by exopathogenic wind-heat toxin from the mouth and nose. This pathogen mixing with phlegm turns into fire to obstruct the Shaoyang and Yangming Channels, leading to lump due to accumulation of heat in the parotid region. Therefore, the principle of treatment should be to eliminate stagnated heat from the Shaoyang and Yangming Channels.

And how would one eliminate stagnated heat from the Shaoyang and Yangming Channels? According to Dr. Long Wenjun needles in the ear points of Antitragic Apex and Pancreas-Gallbladder are the first choice in treatment.


Although Song treated 1000 cases with a single needle at the Pingjian point (MA-T2). As with all self-limited diseases, the effect is satisfactory. And don’t forget,

The needle should be sterilized carefully to prevent infection.

If the Pingjian point is the same as either the Antitragic Apex and Pancreas-Gallbladder I can’t say for sure.  The interwebs are not clear.

Both are incorrect, as the Fire-needle with sulfur is obviously better, although I can’t discover exactly what it is. It does sound better.  Fire-needle.  Kids will love that.

That is what I could find on Pubmed concerning mumps and acupuncture. Others  on the web suggest different places to needle and perhaps a different etiology.  I do like the terms ‘massive head scourge’ and ‘frog scourge’  for mumps and that website offers yet another acupuncture intervention.

Give the known viral pathophysiology of mumps, there is zero reason to suspect that the fanciful and inconsistent interventions mentioned above would have any effect on the mumps. It doesn’t stop the Cochrane reviews from looking for something to meta-analyze. Like the prior review from 2012, they

identified no trials for inclusion in this updated review.

But suggest

More high-quality research is needed.

More suggests there has been some quality research. There hasn’t. And is any research needed? I think not. I would hope that IRB’s would recognize useless pseudo-medicine when they see it and protect children from needless needles. Yeah. Right. Like that will happen.

Points of Interest 2/5/2015
Points of Interest 2/3/2015

Related Posts