Birdbrained ideas

Traveler in the Arts · Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:38 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Evan Pantazi:

The point was, is and will always be, if you have no experience and can't make it work, then how are you going to qualify any test.

1. The information lacking is the practical experience of making a a Kyusho strike work.

2. Who has it is the person that actually practiced it until success was achieved.

3. Qualifications would be both #1 & #2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suppose I claim to be able to produce an 'antigravity' levitation effect, i.e. if I hold my mouth just right, I can make another person jump up and walk upside-down on the ceiling. I have demonstrated this in public, however not everyone believes I am really doing this. For example, some people claim that my subjects are ringer gymnasts that wear magnetic boots. Others claim that my subjects are gifted mystics that actually have their own levitation capablility that I have found a way to trigger. There are many theories about what I claim to be doing and I am willing to be 'tested', but only under the following personal perspective and conditions:

The point was, is and will always be, if you have no experience [producing antigravity levitation] and can't make it [antigravity levitation] work, then how are you going to qualify any test [of antigravity levitation].

1. The information lacking is the practical experience of making an antigravity levitation work.

2. Who has it is the person that actually practiced it until success was achieved producing an antigravity levitation.

3. Qualifications would be both #1 & #2.

The above type of reasoning is called "begging the question." It is a form of invalid reasoning in which you assume what you are trying to prove. In this case, that the antigravity levitation effect actually exists.

Unfortunately, this is precisely the problem with Evan's reasoning about the kyusho effect. It just isn't correct to claim that the only qualified test of whether or not the kyusho effect exists, must be performed by persons who have produced the kyusho effect.

This simple reduces back to the same claim, namely that the kyusho effect already exists.

The point of a scientifically designed experiment and controls, by unbiased third partys, is precisely to provide independent verification (or not) of the claim. This means that the original claim must be falsifiable, and that the experimental design must permit non-verification.

John

[This message has been edited by Traveler in the Arts (edited July 03, 2002).]

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 4:09 pm

Evan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The information lacking is the practical experience of making a a Kyusho strike work.

Evan, do you realize how this comes across? The word arrogant comes to mind. You STILL haven't answered my questions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

What makes you think you or your immediate peers are the only ones in the world doing kyusho?

...and... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

What exactly is your definition of kyusho?

If you can't answer these simple questions, then these remarks only serve to depict your statements as baseless and gratuitously insulting.

Understood?

You seem a bit preoccupied with letters and belts, Evan. Since you brought it up, perhaps you should examine what all that is about.

Most any organization worth its salt has some process to insure that the information exchanged or the services rendered are credible and safe. In my business, our HMOs must be accredited by an EXTERNAL, NONPROFIT entity - the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA). No, this entity DOES NOT know how to run a health insurance company. Hospitals have JCAHO. Professionals of any caliber have their own review boards and external accrediting entities. The goal is to assure the public that the services promised are being rendered and the public is not harmed.

How important is that? Open up your newspaper today. Check out stories on Enron, WorldCom, and Messier. Quite a few "respectable" individuals are going to be doing time in jail and have their fortunes divided in civil court by individuals harmed through the selfish behavior of a few. Respectable, eh?

In my business, HIPAA means that someone could get a $250,000 fine and 5 years in jail for releasing personal health information. GOOD!!! There are good reasons for the existence of such laws and external regulatory bodies.

You say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I have been working with Uechi Ryu Kata since 1997 and have literally KO a couple hundred folks...including Uechi Ryu practioners, with these techniques around the world including skeptics, even at your own camp.

Yes, I have seen some of these "KOs", including one that you performed on one of my students. I have it on film. I also talked to Arnie afterwards, and have his first hand account of what happened. Perhaps you have forgotten.

I will go out on a limb here. I propose the following in regard to your KOs. Either you

1) are playing Russian Roulette and it's only a matter of time before you cause permanent harm or death to someone, or

2) many (not all) of these KOs are less than what meets the eye.

Let's assume either or both are the case.

What happens when someone is hurt (or worse) in one of these KO demonstrations, Evan? If the family of that individual chose to file a civil suit on the kyusho practitioner and any group associated with him/her, do you think there would be any shortage of individuals who would testify "I told you so" in court? Do you think there is any shortage of reputable written material that speaks to the dangers involved? What would the forensic pathologist say? (Yes, that nasty MWM doctor with the letters after his name who doesn't care for the TCM paradigm...) And of course we aren't even talking about criminal charges.

But let’s just say this is harmless fun. A little P.T. Barnum, with entertainment value and a nice career for the "experts". This gets even more interesting. Let's say Mr. Jones studied the "Changsoo Method" diligently for years and was promised many times in writing and verbally that "This stuff really works." What happens when he gets in a fight and gets hurt or even killed? Do you think the grieving widow might not go to the law firm of Dewey, Chetham, and Howe, demanding justice from Mr. Jones’s teacher, Mr. Changsoo, and anyone else with some deep pockets? How far are those waivers going to get the teacher when he PROMISED this stuff REALLY works?

So, Sensei Pantazi, pardon me if I wax cautious and pensive when approaching this material. Pardon me if I don't participate in KO shows - for one or more reasons. Pardon me if I choose to engage in scientifically valid methods of evaluating the material. And pardon me if I choose to engage in truth in advertising. That's just my stogy way. Some call it wise. I don't know...

As always, I welcome the company of the open minded in this regard.

- Bill

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 4:58 pm

Mattson Sensei, et al.

Please understand that I am friendly with Mattson, Glasheen, Canna and many others and there is no personal ill will in what I write and I wish to continue the friendship. I must however state what I see, from another viewpoint, without that then there is just non practioners testing unfamiliar grounds, claiming Scientific Standards. To test anything you must be objective, take in all considerations, whether you like them or are even affronted with them.

Mattson Sensei,
An attack was forwarded not by me, but by the comment in the article on your main page, which I will address later. I am merely stating a point of view from another standpoint...this should not take any objective test or person and turn it personal. So there is no animosity, on my part, but I do not think I should sit back and let discrepancies not be mentioned.

It is not a "Power" or "Talent" as you mentioned, but a skill that needs practice to attain any degree of consistancey.

Now test away, but a question, if you don't have someone that can acutally perform it, or got it to work once, how do you accurately test it? A simple question, yet it needed to be (and still does), brought up according to what is written in prior text.

------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

Evan Pantazi · Post by **Evan Pantazi** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 9:23 pm

Glasheen Sensei,

Let me say that I put my ass and reputation on the line at each seminar and in each country that I teach (especially where it is new and folks come to see if it is real) as well as with many people that walk through my Dojo door.

Let me relate a great story about the time A few years back I was invited to Bethony Senseis Dojo in Brockton. Canna Sensei, Maloney Sensei, Bethony Sensei and I in one dojo with no one else around...they wanted to talk about Kyusho and train. I didn't know what to expect, I will admit to being apprehensive, but I know what I know and believe it to the core and am willing to show it, fail at it, but damn I will brag about it as well when done. So to each and all it does not matter what you think about Kyusho, nor does it matter what you think of me, as for the world waiting it dosn't matter as I am not waiting for it

We do not think we are the only ones doing it, however we are doing it. There are even those who say they are doing it but can't...there's one in Waltham that actually renumbered all the points! There are those who wrote lengthy and steaming articles only 10 years ago about how this dosn't work and how Dillman just hurts people, but then less than 10 years after that article several encyclopedias, videos and professions of Mastery of it is claimed. Yep we have some real winners in this Art, or at least professing it. But there are also thousands that can do it...each will tell you it wasn't easy making it work ...again my whole point is that it takes time and practice to get this to work. If you test it without the proper person doing it the test will be invalid.

My definition of Kyusho is: the study of the weaker anatomical structures of the human body that will incapacitate an individual with no outward signs of damage that can be linked to the attack and as it relates to Kata and Martial Arts.

I have some great Blood and Wind KO's as well dosn't have to even be a KO. I have a current disscussion with many Kyusho Practioners as the term KO is incomplete and that that as a goal is not always necessary. I personally want to be able to take an opponent to any level needed, be it just a buzz to let them know they were out of line, up to several levels of incapacitation including unconscioussness.

But the one thing we do do is show it, many talk, but to feel or see it brings a deeper understanding. You yourself were apprehensive in believing that someone could be rendered unconsciouss with light force early on. Seeeing it definately changes that...if you just heard or read about it, that level of understanding could never avail itself.

As for legalities and danger element, no more so than a demo I saw with a board and a shin, "Performed" by a high level Uechi Practican where the broken (and rather Sharp) end flew into a spectator. Mattson Sensei was also there. Or how about those broken ribs from a side kick...only thing is that can be seen. Physical damage is obsservable, no burden of proof for the defense. We also have a 20 year study with no ill effects that I know of, at least I can say that of the Organization I am in...can't speak for other groups. We understand the risks and accept them from both being struck and doing the striking. But any Martial Art has that danger element...how does one know for sure that doing a conditioning exercise dosn't cause bone spurs, or the constant shock wave is not damaging internal organs to whatever degree. It ain't just Kyusho that this can happen in!

For the record folks we are realistic in what we tell people about the Art. We always demonstrate points and effect in each class or seminar but we never say it's 100% effective...can't touch'em can't make it work no matter what you do. We merely point out weaker targets and dispell myths on Traditional systems, like the one where you raise your forearm over your head is a viable block that will protect you. Well it could be, but how about it being an arm break, or a forearm under the jaw, ect...that's what we tell people. This is not meant as a brag so don't take it that way, but I have KO'd well over 2000 people now and have successfuly taught an unknown amount of folks how to do it, so I think I have a grasp on some of it's workings. That is what is meant by experience, what should I tell people about it? Should I say that someone that has never done it can and could be a viable part of a test...I can't.

------------------
Evan Pantazi
www.kyusho.com

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 10:38 pm

Evan, I'd agree that for us to have anything useful to test, we have to have someone who can produce the tested result. If we wanted to see whether A then B produced KO more often than B alone, obviously if we didn't have someone who could KO someone we wouldn't have much of a test.

However, we have to figure out what we're going to test.

Are we going to test the idea that ANY sequential striking is going to result in increased response to strike 2? Just from anxiety and pain, I think it would be likely that we'd observe a greater response to a strike after just a pinch that was sufficient to cause distressing pain. So shouldn't we be testing something more than that?

One could approach sequences in several ways. One could seek to evaluate the TCM theories of sequential striking, in which case what we could use is either a statement of what these theories are, or where we can find them. Or we could just look some up from whatever sources we find and test them.

I have, however, already put the theories contained in one text to a statistical test which they failed. I've looked on repeated occasions for someone from kyusho who can respond / refute my analysis and I've received only one reply, which did not address any of my points and basically said that practitioners can pull it off in the dojo. That wasn't what my analysis was about.

The other way to approach sequences would be to start cataloging a large number of different sequences and seeing which seem to work and which don't. Rebuilding the theories from the ground up.

You mentioned that people accept basic kyusho now and that advanced kyusho will only be a matter of time. Just what is advanced kyusho? We have to know what we're talking about to design a real test. Otherwise the fussing will continue without resolution as it has for chi, as yet undefined, as yet untested, and as yet unestablished (to my knowledge).

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 10:51 pm

Evan

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

Let me start by reminding you that several of my students have worked directly with you. They have also studied pressure point fighting from other sources - before and after having met you - and we collectively engage in a little bit of light contact here and there.

Let me also remind you that we both witnessed several years of...entertainment on the private kyusho forum. I share some of your thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

My definition of Kyusho is: the study of the weaker anatomical structures of the human body that will incapacitate an individual with no outward signs of damage that can be linked to the attack and as it relates to Kata and Martial Arts.

That's a fairly nice definition. But it leaves quite a bit of latitude, doesn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

We do not think we are the only ones doing it, however we are doing it.

Thank you, and well stated.

Let's take the following statement you made. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

there's one in Waltham that actually renumbered all the points!

Now I don't know who this individual is, nor do I know anything about his reputation or ability. But your statement is very revealing, isn't it? I might ask "To what end?" Perhaps this particular gentleman just wanted to name things his way, not realizing he would create confusion and even a lack of understanding in the process.

However I presume that when you speak of specific points with specific names, that you are presuming the whole art is linked to the traditional acupuncture meridian system, and the associated nomenclature. I agree the nomenclature is historically relevant. I also believe that nomenclature to be highly convenient the way the English language is convenient as a common medium of communication.

However you should know by now that some are consciously and intentionally departing from the nomenclature and in some cases never considered it in the first place. Why the blasphemy?

You say GB 26; I see the trigeminal nerve. You say St9 or St10, and I see a carotid sinus with a baroreceptor sensor and both baroreceptor and chemoreceptor vagal outputs. You say TW17, and I have a collection of potential labels for what "it" is, depending on how "it" is attacked. That "point" is truly three-dimensional. You say any one of a number of lung, large intestine, or triple warmer points, and I see one and only one entity - the radial nerve at various points in its anatomy. You say energy (qi?) disruption, and I see the autonomic nervous system (or even some other physiologic entity) at work. We could go on, and on, and on.

Am I being arbitrarily stubborn? I think not. To be bound by the acupuncture nomenclature is potentially to be bound - and restrained - by an anatomical nomenclature that doesn't do justice to the actual mechanisms involved. Some argue that the traditional meridian system approach is cumbersome, complex, and so full of contradictions and exceptions to be useless except for the labeling. Fine...but then even that gets to be baggage if the labels are too complex in some regions and too simplistic in others.

I happen to be one of a few who believe that - from a contemporary application standpoint - there is a better way.

Now I tend to be easy and I can learn another person's language if it facilitates communication and understanding. I think there will always be a use for the nomenclature you use. But some ties bind and others constrain. One must be careful.

On the experience front... I'm a researcher/visionary, and not a master technician. I understand my role on this earth in the whole scheme of things. We researchers make it a point to jump in to new things all the time, and generally don't fear dabbling where we have no expertise. As Einstein once said, if we understood it in the first place, then it wouldn't be research. When it becomes "conventional", well then it's time to turn it over to production and/or the master technicians. That's what they do, and much better than the researchers. Time to move on to some other problem on this earth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

There are even those who say they are doing it but can't

This is an interesting statement. In some cases, I'm sure the general consensus would be yes. But in other cases, I think there would be a difference of opinion on what "it" is, and whether "it" is relevant.

Take for example your statement <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I have KO'd well over 2000 people

While I'm sure that some have lost consciousness in the conventional medical sense, I'm willing to bet that a good number of these "KOs" are dojo curiosities. Still others may not be anything close to a KO. Arnie swears you never KO-ed him, even though you told others around (this I have on film) that his actions were indicative of someone having lost control and in the process of a KO. So... perhaps part of "the problem" is a poor definition of what "it" is. "It" may be a collection of things - some important, some interesting, and some absolutely nothing.

Yes, I agree that kyusho isn't - and shouldn't - just be about KOs. This we have in common.

Do I want to claim fraud? No. Do I think there's some interesting stuff here? Absolutely. Do I think even the best fully understand everything that's going on? No, and I think there's a growing consensus in that regard. Do I believe that the dangers involved are highly understated by you? Absolutely. On another thread budomaster rattled off an impressive list of anecdotal citations in the medical literature concerning deaths caused by a vasovagal response to various stimuli. Yes, we injure ourselves in the dojo all the time. But death is kinda permanent, don't you think? And are you and others ready to be judged in court by medical experts with letters after their name that may or may not be interested in your understanding of the world? The potential should raise your level of concern.

And so in the end, I say there is room for better understanding on all sides.

- Bill

M. Kelly · Post by **M. Kelly** » Thu Jul 04, 2002 4:03 am

What an interesting thread. If I may interject my humble opinion, I would like to make a few comments.

First, I think applying scientific principles to the study of kyusho and even the martial arts in general is long overdue. I am sure there were "theories" about how to fight long before TCM was an organized system of healing. Thus, even the use of TCM principles was at one time "cutting edge." So why not use modern medical science to advance the martial arts, as opposed to clinging to TCM principles only?

I agree with sensei Pantazi that having someone who has no kyusho experience or skills apply the technique creates a negatively biased situation. If we were testing the speed of curve balls, the outcome would be dependant on whether we used little league players or professional pitchers. The problem is that we are talking about individual skills that can vary depending on the individual's level of training and experience. Thus, an inexperienced practitioner who fails to get the desired response does not "prove" that kyusho does not work. Conversely, demonstrating a "KO" does not prove that the accepted theories are true. There are just too many uncontrolled variables.

I agree with Dr Glasheen that any scientist worth his salt will try to avoid any sort of bias either pro or con. However, I think it might be difficult to find enough neutral parties to collect and process the data. A randomized, controlled, double blinded study would be best but this just might not be possible.

So where does this leave us regarding the use of experiments? Should we just drop the whole idea because there are problems with the methods of testing? I think not.

Applying the scientific method to the study of pressure points, although fraught with difficulties, can provide valuable information that can be used to advance the martial arts. The caveat is that we must be cautious about our conclusions. It would be very "unscientific" to draw conclusions without acknowledging the inherent faults in the testing method. I am sure that Dr Glasheen would agree that all good studies have a discussion on the pitfalls and shortcomings of the method used. Often, this is the starting point for future studies.

This whole situation reminds me of the age-old controversy about the use of manipulation. Being an Osteopath, I have a great deal of experience and anecdotal evidence that manipulations can help with musculoskeletal complaints. However, I am well aware that this sort of "evidence" has limited utility. Designing a study involving manipulation has many of the same problems as those suggested in this thread. However, there was a very good study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that compared the osteopathic manipulation to standard medical care for the treatment of uncomplicated back pain. The authors concluded that manipulation provided a similar outcome with less pain, physical therapy, and use of analgesics. When I first read the study, I was thrilled to see the conclusions. However, I soon realized that the study had some inherent flaws. So did this mean that the study was useless to me? No. This particular study provided some evidence that manipulation can lead to decreased pain and decreased use of analgesics and physical therapy. I have found this information quite useful when treating patients who cannot afford medications or physical therapy. Thus, the real value of a study is dependant on who is using the information and how they are applying it. We may never be able to design a "perfect" study for testing kyusho, but we can still learn and improve by trying.

Traveler in the Arts · Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:08 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Evan Pantazi:

Now test away, but a question, if you don't have someone that can acutally perform it, or got it to work once, how do you accurately test it? A simple question, yet it needed to be (and still does), brought up according to what is written in prior text.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Evan,
By "test it" I assume you mean some sort of kyusho KO effect. So, suppose that such a test, call it 'KKO Test1', is designed. If it is scientifically well-designed test then in principle it should be able to be applied to test anyone's ability to perform the kyusho KO effect that KKO Test1 was designed to test, including both someone who walks up off the street, and someone who claims to be an expert in performing the KKO Test1 effect.

So, what will the results be? In general, you will get some confirming instances of subjects performing the KKO Test1 effect successfully, and some non-confirming instances of some subjects not performing the KKO Test1 effect successfully.

Note that such a test can never absolutely prove anything. All it can show is that there were a certain number of confirming instances and a certain number of non-confirming instances. So, if there are a 'significant' number of confirming instances among certain claimed kyusho experts, then that will be impressive evidence to support their claimed ability in terms of KKO Test1. On the other hand, if KKO Test1 also is administered to several subjects who are admittedly non-experts and they are unsuccessful, then that is just fine.

The scientific validity ("accuracy") of KKO Test1 should be addressed in its design, independently of its subjects. (Of course it may ultimatley require a control group and/or be double-blind, etc.)

John

[This message has been edited by Traveler in the Arts (edited July 03, 2002).]

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 04, 2002 5:29 am

Evan

Just to let you know...

I have every intention of evaluating targeted sequential striking, and furthering my own knowledge base. I have every intention of contributing to the collective knowledge and wisdom in this regard.

Since you haven't answered some of my previous questions, then I presume with a high degree of confidence that this may or may not involve individuals you "approve" of, or involve material that you consider to be kyusho. I can live with that.

I am more than happy to work with you. Always have been.

- Bill

Traveler in the Arts · Thu Jul 04, 2002 1:55 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by M. Kelly:

[snip]

So where does this leave us regarding the use of experiments? Should we just drop the whole idea because there are problems with the methods of testing? I think not.

Applying the scientific method to the study of pressure points, although fraught with difficulties, can provide valuable information that can be used to advance the martial arts. The caveat is that we must be cautious about our conclusions. It would be very "unscientific" to draw conclusions without acknowledging the inherent faults in the testing method.

[snip]

We may never be able to design a "perfect" study for testing kyusho, but we can still learn and improve by trying.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks to everyone, especially the experts, for discussing this fascinating subject in this open forum, and thanks for including kyusho beginners like me in the discussion.

If you don't mind, as a simple exercise, maybe each of the experts could describe exactly what they think is going on in the Taikyoku KO posted on Evan's site:
http://www.kyusho.com/library.htm

The exact link to the .mpeg movie is:
http://www.kyusho.com/TaikyokuKO.mpg

Here are my TaikyokuKO Questions:

1. What is your description of and explanation for what is happening in this "KO"?

2. Based on 1. formulate a simple testable hypothesis to support/refute your answer in 1.

3. Briefly describe the design of an experiment to test your hypothesis in 2.

When I first saw this TaikyokuKO about 10 days ago, I had an immediate (admittedly non-expert) reaction together with some conjectures for what seems to be happening. I won't mention them now, but will wait to hear your expert opinions first.

It seems that since there is so little scientific data on the subject of kyusho KO's, before one could reasonably address very complex experiments (e.g. sequential strikes, etc.), one should first be able to, at least in principle, adequately answer the above questions for this basic kyusho KO.

Thanks in advance,
John

[This message has been edited by Traveler in the Arts (edited July 04, 2002).]

jorvik · Post by **jorvik** » Thu Jul 04, 2002 6:38 pm

Everybody seems to agree that basic kyusho works.There is an underlying issue here which seems to be causeing the controversy,and that is, how do you explain the knockouts?
Mr Glasheen would try to establish western medical facts,whereas I don't believe that kyusho people ( and I generalise) would explain them on the same basis....I mean how can you explain a no-touch knockout using western medical methodology...you just can't....if on the other hand you believe in "chi", then you can explain it.This is the cause of the underlying problem, two differing philosophies, and now and then this will surface and cause tension.

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Fri Jul 05, 2002 2:04 am

First, I don't even know what basic kyusho is. We seem to agree that it works though. But no one wants to get pinned down, and so we've got no idea what we're really talking about or testing. If the kyusho people don't want to make specific definitions, then the science people are going to try to fill the gap, and then any results they're going to come up with will be dismissed as nonexpert nonpractitioning nonrelevent drivel. Just watch.

Second, you can explain a no-touch KO with western perspective: it's horsepoopie. Look at the analagous no touch empty force--sure seemed to defy western explanation, but only if one assumed it was a real objective force. But unless it cannot penetrate a wall, it turned out to be a force reliant on the subject's perception. The placebo effect is well established and studied, and this was little different.

We have to divide the phenomenon from the explanation. It's hard to argue about what is seen at kyusho demonstrations and in the videos. What is up for dispute: does it work in the field (karate not immune to this kind of test, btw)? And why is what we see happening? (nerve, the RAS, the vasovagal response, or something else "western" we can't explain, or is there chi, running on various meridians in the manner we're told?).

Finally, western science does not exclude chi. Western science is just... whatever the data shows. The theory that is most consistent with what we can observe. If someone would define chi so we could start looking for it, we might find it,and then everyone would be happy. Western science has found all sorts of wacky things it previously didn't believe in. Matter warps space. Light has weight. Time is relative. Electrons disappear one place and reappear elsewhere. Previously unimaginable forms of matter are part of general public knowledge, if not understanding (black holes, for example).

Western science slowly but surely accepts what is shown to be what's going on, however wacky it is, if someone can prove it.

Everything else is saying that what we feel or intuit or just know from everyday experience is good enough, we don't need close study.

But what we've learned is that heavy objects DON'T fall faster than lighter ones, despite an overwhelming conviction among people who felt they did. We can confabulate about what's really going on in the heavens without being willing to look through the telescope, but doing so makes the discussion a lot more productive.

M. Kelly · Post by **M. Kelly** » Fri Jul 05, 2002 3:15 am

Ian,
Well said.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jul 05, 2002 4:16 pm

Ian and MK

Thank you, doctors.

Traveler

I think it appropriate to at least acknowledge your question.

First, I have a small-screened computer here at work, with no sound. Consequently it's difficult for me to see exactly where Evan is striking, and I can't hear what he's saying. It would be useful, for anatomic reasons, for someone to mention the two points. Best I can tell, it's Lung 5 and GB20.

Second - and most important here - this appears to be quite complex. With my limited view here (and my humble background), I see MANY things going on here. It's difficult for science to prove many things with one experiment. Only when we can measure many things at once and use inferential statistical techniques can we even begin to attack a multifactorial problem. For example:

On the first strike

* There appears to be an attack on the radial nerve.

* Evan has - to some extent - used simple physics (aikido principles) to reorient the individual's body, thus making the second target present itself.

* Evan also appears to have triggered a reflex (note the sudden bending of the arm) - an entirely different physiologic phenomenon from striking the radial nerve. This contributed to that body reorientation.

* One can generally assume that the first strike is capable of triggering a somatosympathetic reflex (response to pain).

* There is also a physical response to pain that can explain the body reorientation.

The second strike

* One cannot discount the fact that the head was struck at an angle to directly affect "mission control" - the reticular activating system. Hit the head - particularly at this angle - and that alone can make the lights go out quickly. There's a good reason why many boxing techniques to this area are illegal.

* One cannot also discount the fact that a shock may have been sent directly to the medulla oblongata - the controller of the autonomic nervous system.

* There is very likely a parasympathetic response to an attack to GB20. The fact that one first hit a sympathetic nervous system point would magnify the parasympathetic response of the second strike (I can provide the reference if you wish). This then could cause a vasovagal response.

Seeing the speed at which the response happens tells me that it is not likely solely a vasovagal response. This suggests then that:

1) There was likely a direct effect on "mission control" with the second strike (smash the bloody head from the back),

and/or

2) There was an additional response at least contributing to what we see due to the fact that this is what we call a cooperative environment (placebo, power of suggestion, etc.).

So...

It is bad science to take something complex, try at step one to prove it works (or not), and then generalize that everything else Master Changsoo is doing really, really works.

It is, however, useful to demonstrate the fundamental principles involved, one step at a time. One of my favorite books I ever read in science was From neuron to brain. My physiology teacher is going to kill me because I can't remember the author at this point in time. Perhaps either Ian or MK can rattle it off. In any case, it is a collection of a lifetime of experiments by a giant in the field that - step by step - showed how signals travel along nerves.

What I propose is that this can also be done in this field. Some of the very principles discussed can be demonstrated one at a time in a series of works, if not rigorous experiments. A good deal has in fact been done which makes it possible for me to even begin to comment on that sequence.

I can tell you how we can show that a vasovagal response may (or may not) have contributed to what we saw in this picture. Measure heart rate and blood pressure at three points in this sequence: before the first strike, after the first and before the second strike, and after the second strike. The following would be consistent with a vasovagal response, enhanced with a "set up" technique:

* Normal HR and BP at point one.

* Slightly elevated HR and BP at point two.

* Dramatically decreased HR and BP at point three.

If I thought long enough, I could probably think of a few experiments to demonstrate some of the other principles discussed.

THIS is why I predict that there will not be a single universal theory that will explain everything we see in all these karate magic shows (a term once used by one of my karate instructors and former member of special forces).

- Bill

M. Kelly · Post by **M. Kelly** » Fri Jul 05, 2002 4:35 pm

Dr Glasheen,
I see some familiar information in your comments

I agree with you that this is a complex movement that cannot be explained with one simple experiment. Of note, although most vasovagal reactions occur with a sudden drop in blood pressure, the most important part of a vasovagal faint is the corresponding cerebral vasoconstriction. I believe this is the part that actually induces the loss of consciousness. I have come across some interesting reports of patients who have had syncopal events during cardiac electrophysiologic studies with minor changes in blood pressure and drastic changes in cerebral vasoconstriction. Second, I think the test you suggest would only really work if one used an arterial line to monitor blood pressure fluctuations in real time. Using a simple blood pressure cuff might not catch the changes. At my hospital we are currently discussing a similar type of study using arterial lines.