Please realize that this is not a case of "us" vs "them." If acupuncture is a reality and works via a system then that system and the effects must be observable and they are. Morant clearly defines the effects, how to observe these effects and produce them. We have put these theories to the test and found that we are able to verify them consistently, thus it is clear that acupuncture does work via a "system" and that the effects produced by acupuncture on the individual can be observed via the radial pulses.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of “styles” of acupuncture: Japanese Meridian acupuncture, Worsley 5-Element acupuncture, Japanese Hari and ToyoHari acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Master Tong’s acupuncture, Richard Tan’s Balancing system, I-Ching acupuncture, “Classical” acupuncture, etc. . . yet, the “style” practiced is of no consequence if the practitioner does not fully understand the true basis of acupuncture.
This causes great contention amongst practitioners, for each “style” believes that they hold all the secrets and, therefore, are the best or only “true” form of acupuncture. What is necessary to be a True Acupuncture practitioner, however, is not some arcane theory, lineage, culture, or anything else for that matter. What is required is the clear understanding of pulse diagnosis, how true acupuncture points reflect in the radial pulses, and the understanding of the clinical reality of the relationships of the different systems and parts of the human body — this is all 100% verifiable by all and therefore theory is moot. As a result and regardless of the style a practitioner practices, if they do not know how to locate and needle a true acupoint and verify it via the radial pulses, then they practice only theoretical acupuncture and nothing related to true clinical acupuncture.