Kyusho/Tuite Application

[Garrette]

You can't be serious, crimresearch, can you?

Sadly, I suspect you can.

What is out of line about thaiboxerken's request?

Answer: nothing.

What you have right now is a hypothesis with no substantiation.
It may, in fact, be an accurate hypothesis.

Has anyone tested it for its accuracy or validity? Can they show the data, the demos, the videos? Can it be replicated?

You are saying "Because we know X about the body, it is possible to do Y to the body. Please prove I am wrong."

What you should be saying is "Because we know X about the body, it is possible to do Y to the body. Here are the experiments that have been done to verify this. Can you find flaws with these experiments, outlined here, here, and here?"

 

[crimresearch]

Sorry. but demands to 'prove' basic anatomy and physiology by incorrectly labelling them as hypotheses won't fly.

You are basically saying that because we can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow by citing experiments on speeding up, slowing down, and reversing the sun, that all current scientific knowledge about the solar system is invalid.

That is sheer sophistry.

We know empirically that if the brain is deprived of oxygen or blood flow for a certain period of time, that unconsciousness followed by death will result. That knowledge isn't hypothesis, and it isn't based on a statistical analysis of experments involving killing off half of a sample group.

We know empirically that exerting force at specific angles to the brain casing will trigger a shutdown, we don't need to cite experiments using baseball bats and bowling balls against people's heads.

And we know empirically that hundreds of thousands of people are rendered suddenly unconscious because of a vasovagal reflex, triggered by, among other things, pain and trauma to the head and neck...again, not hypothesis, and no need to apply such stimuli to an experimental subject group.

The fact that none of you mentions that no human subjects research board would ever approve the studies you demand cites for, indicates an extreme lack of knowledge about the scientific method (not to mention medical ethics), and quite frankly, disqualifies you from any further participation in this discourse, since you have nothing to contribute but idle speculation and said demonstrated lack of knowledge.

Feel free to educate yourselves on the matter at hand though, and come on back when you have something useful to offer.

Take care

Paul

 

[Garrette]

All quotations from crimresearch:

Sorry. but demands to 'prove' basic anatomy and physiology by incorrectly labelling them as hypotheses won't fly.

You are intentionally misunderstanding, I think. But on the chance that I'm wrong (I have been wrong many times before), I'll clarify:

I'm not asking you to prove basic anatomy or physiology. I'm asking you to demonstrate that your hypothesis--which is that you (or others) can render someone physically unconscious with nothing but a touch-is correct.

You draw your hypothesis from your understanding of anatomy and physiology, but they are not the same.

You are basically saying that because we can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow by citing experiments on speeding up, slowing down, and reversing the sun, that all current scientific knowledge about the solar system is invalid.

Perhaps I was wrong; you seem to truly misunderstand this.

We have proven that the sun will rise tomorrow (insofar as anything is proven outside mathematics) through demonstration and replication.

Hypothesis: The sun rises every morning, though the exact time varies depending on the earth's position in orbit relative to the sun. Tomorrow, sunrise will be at xx:xx a.m.

This hypothesis is falsified if the sun does not rise at xx:xx a.m. tomorrow.

Experiment: Tomorrow at xx:xx a.m., look to the east.

Result: The sun rose as predicted.

Repeat
Repeat
Repeat
Repeat

Conclusion: The hypothesis that the sun rises in the morning is now accepted as theory.

We know empirically that if the brain is deprived of oxygen or blood flow for a certain period of time, that unconsciousness followed by death will result. That knowledge isn't hypothesis, and it isn't based on a statistical analysis of experments involving killing off half of a sample group.

But it is based on observation and data of unconsciousness resulting from oxygen/blood deprivation, even if such observation is in the hospital after trauma.

No one has insisted you kill anyone. In fact, this is the first time you've brought up "killing someone," I think. Funny that it's a new angle brought in as a rationalization of why there are no demonstrations of your claim.

I'm not new to this subject, crim. I'm a martial artist, too, though it's far from likely that I'm the best or most advanced on this board. But I do have experience in 'knockouts' and in restricting blood flow to the neck.

We know empirically that exerting force at specific angles to the brain casing will trigger a shutdown, we don't need to cite experiments using baseball bats and bowling balls against people's heads.

"We know empirically" is your own proof against you. That means it's been demonstrated. I agree; it has been. People have been punched, kicked, hit with bats, fallen down stairs, thrown through windows, been in car wrecks, fallen out of trees. Then they've gone to hospital. Data has been collected.

No one studied Gray's Anatomy and then determined "We can knock people out with a kick to the head" and then had it accepted as fact.

And we know empirically that hundreds of thousands of people are rendered suddenly unconscious because of a vasovagal reflex, triggered by, among other things, pain and trauma to the head and neck...again, not hypothesis, and no need to apply such stimuli to an experimental subject group.

See above.

The fact that none of you mentions that no human subjects research board would ever approve the studies you demand cites for, indicates an extreme lack of knowledge about the scientific method (not to mention medical ethics), and quite frankly, disqualifies you from any further participation in this discourse, since you have nothing to contribute but idle speculation and said demonstrated lack of knowledge.

So you're admitting that you've never seen this happen, that no demonstrations exist.

What studies would be rejected? The ones risking death, obviously. Does every use of this power you claim exists risk death?

I do not see an board on ethics in research rejecting the following:

I intend to take ten healthy males and, using two fingers held stiffly together, apply pressure in the range of 4 - 7 psi in the juncture of cartilage, nerve, tendon, and soft tissue on the inside of the elbow. The pressure will be applied quickly and sharply, lasting less than one second. Expectations are that unconsciousness will result.

They do not, in fact, reject acupuncture, which would seem to be far more likely to cause damage.

Please spare me your blather about my qualifications to continue in this discourse. I'll match myself against you on the question of unconsciousness-by-touch and the scientific method anyday. I will admit my knowledge of anatomy is limited.

Victory is not gained by fiat nor by bluster. Indignation when your bluff is called is not an effective debating technique.

Feel free to educate yourselves on the matter at hand though, and come on back when you have something useful to offer.

I'm never against getting more education, but there's nothing here to indicate it's needed.


All that being said, I'm not convinced that what you claim isn't possible. It's just that you're claiming it as fact with it not having been demonstrated.

 

[Prolix]

Sorry crimesearch, vasovagal syncope is almost never triggered by light, or even heavy pain or trauma, per se, to the head or neck. How about studying-up a little, so you can avoid appearing so foolish.

http://www.ncemi.org/cse/cse0101.htm

"...Treatment is empiric because the specific physiologic triggers of vasovagal syncope are largely unidentified." http://www.aafp.org/afp/20010515/tips/7.html

"Those with vasovagal syncope have an abnormal reflex to this information-there is an inundation of the messages from the barorecptors, and this overcompensation causes the halting of messages sent from the brain to constrict vessels, and the reverse is communicated, vessels dilate, less blood reaches the brain, and fainting ensues." Note nothing about KOs with light touch. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web2/ljackson.html

 

[Prolix]

Crimeforce said "The mechanism for inducing light touch/light force KOs (baroceptors, RAS shutdown, etc.) is clearly known and well understood, and has been explicated by Western medical professionals in any number of texts. Not only are light touch KOs possible, the brain/body is 'hard wired' to induce them as a protective measure."

Those of us who are familiar with western medical texts and who do western medicine and surgery sure would like to make use of this light touch technique. It might be a lot safer than the really heavy biochemical methods of anesthesia we are presently using. Maybe were forced to use these risky techniques because you haven't shown us the explications and texts you apparently know about. Please do us benighted western doctors and our patients a great service and cite on the forum some of your references. If they are properly controlled and reproduced studies we can surely all benefit.

 

[Prolix]

Dear whoever said this:
"I intend to take ten healthy males and, using two fingers held stiffly together, apply pressure in the range of 4 - 7 psi in the juncture of cartilage, nerve, tendon, and soft tissue on the inside of the elbow. The pressure will be applied quickly and sharply, lasting less than one second. Expectations are that unconsciousness will result."

Will you please describe this "juncture" better? Despite operating on the elbow hundreds of times I can't think of where this anatomic site could be. I'd be glad to try this on myself and maybe a few surgeon friends, so let us know where to do it.


BTW, do you mean 4-7 psi or lbs of force? If psi, at what depth in the tissue does this pressue need to be delivered to? And over what area does this pressure need to ba applied?

 

[Garrette]

Prolix,

I'm the one who wrote the bit about the 4 - 7 psi. Please re-read the context in which I wrote it.

I thought it was obvious that I was not advocating this as my position, but as a paraphrase of crimresearch's position to indicate that it is not something that would be illegal to conduct research on, as crimresearch stated (imo, as a rationalization as to why no such demonstrations exist).

All the particulars in that statement were pulled out of the air.

Does that help?

 

[Prolix]

Garrette,

Thanks for straightening me out. I falsely assumed your example experiment had truly been proposed by somebody like Crimresearch. You are to be commended for your ability to emulate pseudo-scientific thinking - and at the same time get it past the ethics committee.

How about setting up the $100 ELBOW JUNCTURE KO CHALLENGE?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I've noticed how Crimeresearch tries to shift the burden of evidence upon the skeptics here by falsely claiming that light-touch KO's are scientifically factual or evident. You'd think that there would be some actual science and evidence to support his position of this were true. Another example of what Crimeresearch is doing would be a psychic telling people that quantum physics and information transfer is the reason they have psychic abilities, that it's up to the skeptics to prove his scientific establishments false.

Crimeresearch.. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. And, like most believers, you have failed to give evidence for your belief.

 

[crimresearch]

Well, I wondered how long it would take this bunch to resort to outright lying and attempts to put words in my mouth in order to draw attention away from their superstitious mumbo-jumbo...now I see, not long at all.

Here is my original comment about kyusho/tuite and whether or not it works:

"For all intents and purposes, Kyusho/Tuite failed the test under fairly ideal conditions."

followed by

"cases of TCM labelling things well understood by the West in a mystical manner that coincides with, but doesn't truly explain the phenomena."

and finally, for those who still didn't 'get it':

"In other words, sometimes a light force to the right place, on the right person, can induce unconsciousness.
Please feel free to prove otherwise."

I have also mentioned that the problem with GS's proposed design for the challenge might come from the fact that people become unconscious though mechanisms that have nothing to do with TCM theories.

In plain and simple terms, I doubt that tuite 'works' as advertised, but people can *sometimes* be rendered unconscious without applying great crushing forces, so any absolute statements about light forces and KOs, need to be put in the context of what Western medicine already knows about the matter.

In response to this, we get the usual keyboard commando tactics of putting words in my mouth:

"by falsely claiming that light-touch KO's are scientifically factual or evident. "

"I'm asking you to demonstrate that your hypothesis--which is that you (or others) can render someone physically unconscious with nothing but a touch-is correct."

"I intend to take ten healthy males and, using two fingers held stiffly together, apply pressure in the range of 4 - 7 psi in the juncture of cartilage, nerve, tendon, and soft tissue on the inside of the elbow. The pressure will be applied quickly and sharply, lasting less than one second. Expectations are that unconsciousness will result."

"You are saying "Because we know X about the body, it is possible to do Y to the body. Please prove I am wrong"

"that people can KO people with voice alone..."

Notice that not only do these claims not match up to my stated position on the matter, but build up the current straw man, namely that I have claimed that I can knock people out with a touch to the elbow...quite a stretch from my actual stated position which is that sometimes, some people become unconscious without the requirement of great forces through mechanisms that are well understood by Wesern medicine.

Now these methods for inducing unconsciousness may include vascular neck restrictions (chokeholds), syncope with all of its various triggers, (otherwise known as fainting), and inducing the brain's shutdown mechanism through various means that again, do not require great forces.

Also notice that I opened the door to a discussion of the range of forces covered under the labels 'light' and 'great', which was rejected.

Instead of entering into a discussion of what I actually said and meant, these folks followed the tired and predictable keyboard commando formula of demanding 'proof' for the words that they put in my mouth, and dodging demands for proof of the opposing position which they have painted themseves into, which seems to be that no one can ever be rendered unconscious from light forces, i.e. choking or fainting, etc.

Prolix added in his specious claims of authority, in that being a surgeon relieved him of the responsibility for backing up his position, followed by the evasion of selecting one possible trigger for syncope with some studies that run contrary to the rest of the literature on the subject...so much for the benefits of medical schooling.
***Note what other doctors have to say on triggers for syncope:

www.fac.org.ar/scvc/llave/arritmia/levine1/levine1i.htm
:When there are known triggers such as the sight of blood or sharp pain..."

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3385.htm
"Other stimuli can trigger a similar autonomic response. The best-known response is carotid sinus pressure. "

http://www.syncope.co.uk/fainting.htm
"Attacks are precipitated by recognised triggers such as fear, severe pain, sight of blood etc."

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m3225/10_63/74335242/p1/article.jhtml?term=heat+syncope
"Precipitating factors may be the sight of blood, a loss of blood, sudden stress or pain, surgical manipulation or trauma. "

and many more, from textbooks, to medical dictionaries, to journal articles, to fact sheets, etc. which I repeatedly encouraged others to study so as to make up their own minds.


So, once again, the JREF forum has served the purpose of allowing trolls to shout down any useful discourse with their cliched behavior.
Such contrarianism is neither science, nor skepticism, and those who substitute high school debate tactics for reason do nothing to further the truth...but then, that was the idea all along, right?


Paul

 

[Garrette]

crimresearch:

"I'm asking you to demonstrate that your hypothesis--which is that you (or others) can render someone physically unconscious with nothing but a touch-is correct."

"I intend to take ten healthy males and, using two fingers held stiffly together, apply pressure in the range of 4 - 7 psi in the juncture of cartilage, nerve, tendon, and soft tissue on the inside of the elbow. The pressure will be applied quickly and sharply, lasting less than one second. Expectations are that unconsciousness will result."

"You are saying "Because we know X about the body, it is possible to do Y to the body. Please prove I am wrong"

Those three are from my posts. I have no problem admitting (and apologizing) if I've misrepresented your position. Since you have included quotations from me, it appears you think I have. Before I admit to it, I'd like to clarify a bit, though:

---

The first statement (about whether you can render someone physically unconscious with a touch) truly does reflect what I understand your position to be. Am I incorrect? You are not saying that you (or someone else) can render a person unconscious with a touch?

---

The second statement (about taking ten healthy males, etc., etc.) was not intended to represent your exact position; I thought that was clear, but since Prolix misunderstood, too, I suppose the fault is mine for not writing clearly enough. I was attempting to take an admittedly fictitious example to demonstrate that your argument about ethics boards not allowing the appropriate type of research was specious. I stand by my contention that your argument regarding ethics boards is specious, but I apologize for not making it more clear that the bit about elbow junctures is my own creation.

---

Regarding the last statement, I stand by it. You are saying
Because we know X about the body, it is possible to do Y to the body. Please prove I am wrong.

In support, I offer this from your latest post:

crimresearch:

"In other words, sometimes a light force to the right place, on the right person, can induce unconsciousness.
Please feel free to prove otherwise."

And this:

crimresearch:

my actual stated position which is that sometimes, some people become unconscious without the requirement of great forces through mechanisms that are well understood by Wesern medicine.

Now these methods for inducing unconsciousness may include vascular neck restrictions (chokeholds), syncope with all of its various triggers, (otherwise known as fainting), and inducing the brain's shutdown mechanism through various means that again, do not require great forces.

But still, I am open to admitting I'm misunderstanding you. Despite your anger here, I've made no attempt to misrepresent your position. I've discussed what I think your actual position to be.

I thank you for clarifying it, though I still disagree with it.

 

[crimresearch]

No anger, just tired of the lack of communication and discourse, which I will admit you seem quite willing to keep working at re-establishing.

***I've not made a claim one way or the other as to my abilities to render someone unconscious.

***My point remains that people do become unconscious from a variety of forces, including light ones. I've asked anyone who disagreed to back up, or at least explain their assertions to the contrary...so far no has offered to.

***Western anatomy and physiology has identified mechanisms or processes within the brain/body that produce unconsciousness.
Some of the triggers for these mechanisms appear to be ones that TCM/tuite could apply, and in the case of successful production of unconsciousness, claim were caused by TCM theories.

Again, I asked those who wished to refute that position do so...again no response

***I clearly labelled such possible incidents of loss of consciousness as not supporting any claim that TCM/tuite worked as described or as advertised.

***I suggested that those who were interested (as well as those such as Apoger, Prolix and TBK who have denied that anyone can ever become unconscious through the biological mechanisms I mentioned) study up on the matter to their own satisfaction.
(The 'matter' of course being Western medical explanations for syncope, et al., NOT tuite or TCM).

Again, no useful response, just more debating over postions that were never put forth by myself.

So seeing yet another thread crash and burn in true JREF style, I'm not going to engage in pointless debate or defend positions that someone else has incorrectly ascribed to me...even in cases such as your's when your explanations for the mixup are plausible and intelligently communicated.

I'm not a cheerleader for TCM or tuite, but I will reserve the right to make comments about possible explanations for some of the phenomena associated with any discipline, without responding to demands that I 'prove' the entire modality I'm speculating on.

take care

Paul

 

[Garrette]

Fair enough, crimresearch.

Take care, too.

 

[Prolix]

Crimrearch said:

***My point remains that people do become unconscious from a variety of forces, including light ones.

Dear Crim,

I apologize for not having read your posts carefully. I had jumped to the conclusion that all along you had been referring to a "light touch KO" . The error of my false conclusion is evidenced by the fact that "light touch" doesn't seem to be mentioned as a factor in syncope in either your or my citations. ( Carotid massage is certainly not a touch, and it's far from light. )

If, all along you have been including "...recognised triggers such as fear, severe pain, sight of blood etc." as some of your "light ones" then I also would say you are right, and I should have recognized your rectitude.

You did say that I'd backed up my position by choosing "...some studies that run contrary to the rest of the literature on the subject." I've reviewed both your citations and mine and I don't see a bit of difference - even the paper by a college student is consistent with the rest. But maybe I just "don't get it," out of some willful obstinacy, and apologies are due, to you.

 

[apoger]

I apologize for not having read your posts carefully.

There is no need to offer an apology. Indeed it should be crimresearch that is making the offer.

The quotes that he refered to making:

"For all intents and purposes, Kyusho/Tuite failed the test under fairly ideal conditions."

"cases of TCM labelling things well understood by the West in a mystical manner that coincides with, but doesn't truly explain the phenomena."

...are from another thread, and are two months old.

It's not our responsibility to research the possibility that he may have expressed an opinion at a different time and place.

It was his responsibility to make himself clear in this thread, which he failed to do, and then he mouthed off when we failed to understand him.

When he said:

"The mechanism for inducing light touch/light force KOs (baroceptors, RAS shutdown, etc.) is clearly known and well understood, and has been explicated by Western medical professionals in any number of texts. "


And we responded by asking for evidence that this has anything to do with TCM's validity, he should have simply said that he was not advocating TCM and explained that he was merely commenting on the fact that there are reasons for the human body to go unconscious.

Instead he went into a rant on the assumption that we had understood his position, when it was not in evidence.

You gentlemen are being very kind in offering him apologies, but the miscommunication was his, and the shoe should be on the other foot.

 

[crimresearch]

No apologies were asked for Apoger...some people just have class, and recognized a miscommunication when they have one pointed out to them.

The other thread was this thread until it was moved into this forum after GS made his application.

And false attributions based on out of context phrases are still the stock in trade of fraudulent keyboard commandos.

Straw man, dismissing facts, placing imaginary time constraints on quotes, and dissembling are all part of the same parcel, which you are still using to drown out rational discourse and substitute your contrarian screed.

It is trite and boring behavior, and as long as you bring nothing useful to this, or any other discourse, you forfeit the right to be taken seriously.

Paul

 

[apoger]

some people just have class

Certainly more than you have shown in your rantings.

and recognized a miscommunication when they have one pointed out to them.

Wouldn't it have been better to point out your veiws rather than creating the miscommunication, and then lashing out, and THEN pointing out how you really felt.

Mistakes happen. I have no problem with that. My issue is with your attitude. That you act like a child and then claim it's everyone else that is arguing poorly just makes it worse.

Straw man, dismissing facts, placing imaginary time constraints on quotes, and dissembling are all part of the same parcel, which you are still using to drown out rational discourse and substitute your contrarian screed.

Nobody is drowning out rational discourse. You are crying "wolf" when there is none.

Save me the "I'm being persecuted by skeptics" rant and act like an adult.

It is trite and boring behavior, and as long as you bring nothing useful to this, or any other discourse, you forfeit the right to be taken seriously.

Unlike your immense contributions of confusion and then cries of persecution?


My stance is the same now as it has always been. If anyone can provide evidence that the TCM is valid or can demonstrate knock-outs with a touch then let them present it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You can cry and whine.. but I see past all of your "strawman" accusations.

"The mechanism for inducing light touch/light force KOs (baroceptors, RAS shutdown, etc.) is clearly known and well understood, and has been explicated by Western medical professionals in any number of texts. Not only are light touch KOs possible, the brain/body is 'hard wired' to induce them as a protective measure."

We were talking about light-touch KO's, you offered your claim that they definitely work, have working theory about them and that the skeptics are the ones that have to prove that they don't happen. It's clear by reading your posts that you are now back-peddling and trying to change your claim. Now you are saying that it's not light-touch KO's.

It's not a good idea to try those tactics when all a person has to do is scroll up to see what you originally said.

I'm with apoger, if anyone thinks they can KO people with light touch, bring it.

 

[robbersdog]

The key question seems to be how light the touch has to be. Imagine a person turning their head to the side and upwards, exposing the Carotid artery. A strike is made to the artery, rapid but relatively light (compared with beating the skull to knock someone out) causing a high pressure jolt in the blood supply to the brain.

A) Is it conceivable to those who think a light blow knock out is not explainable by 'western' science, that a high pressure jolt to the blood supply to the brain could knock someone out? I have never done this, and expect a serious answer to this question. In my limited experience and knowledge, the attack would seem to have a reasonable chance of working. If you think it wouldn't, why do you think that?

B) Would a light blow knockout on it's own be eligible for the million, without the TCM model?

 

[thaiboxerken]

A light, rapid touch to an artery does not significantly raise blood pressure. However, even if it could.. I'm simply skeptical of such claims of light-touch KO's because of the lack of evidence associated with them. Are there scientific, objective tests to verify the phenomena?

"Would a light blow knockout on it's own be eligible for the million, without the TCM model?"

I guess that's up to Randi to determine. As far as I know, medical science does not support the claim, so it should be considered paranormal.