Acupuncture facts and fallacies continued

摘要

By publishing my letter and the accompanying response by Drs. Ramey, Buell, and Imrie in the October issue of Compendium, the matter concerning veterinary acupuncture should have been closed. However, part of their response contains misleading statements that need to be rebutted. The matter concerns the various editions of the classic Chinese veterinary text Yuan-Heng Liaoma Ji. Dr. Ramey and colleagues claim that their article relies on the edition that is very close to the original Ming dynasty editions. They go on to state, "The material to which Dr. Hwang alludes is simply not present in the early, original editions from which our translations have been made." Dr. Ramey and his colleagues need to review my reference more carefully. Reference 2 in my letter is one of the original Ming versions of Liaoma Ji known as "Ding xuben" (the edition with a foreword by Ding). It is possible that Drs. Ramey, Buell, and Imrie have failed to recognize this original edition of Liaoma Ji.