Conclusions of our clinical trial for Parkinson’s treatment using the “Permanent needle”

After conducting a clinical trial by examining the course of 2 Parkinson´s patients groups during a year, one group was treated with the permanent needle and the other was not, we came to the conclusion that: Parkinson´s patients treated with the permanent needles compared to the control group without permanent needle treatment show an improvement in the complications of the symptoms.

The assessment was made by analysing changes in the Farmachology treatment
The double blind study, in which neither the patients nor the treating staff knew which group of experiments each member belonged to, brought these encouraging conclusions to light.

This study, funded by the Center for Neuro-Regenerative Medicine, had a group of 32 men and women affected by Parkinson’s disease, with an average age of 54 years.

Legal Regulations

The Clinical research fulfills the regulations of the UNE-EN-ISO 14155 directive and has been prepared in full agreement with the provisions of the Helsinki Declaration, 1996. The Parkinson’s treatment was performed to volunteers referred from the Michael J. Fox foundation and patients interested in the treatment.

We also had statistics and learned a lot from our patients. The most common medication used by our patients. In our trial we discovered that medication that was used was distributed in the following manner:

This clinical trial also complies with Directive 39/42 / CEE of the Executive Board of 14.6.93 (DOCE nº L 169 of 12.7.93) concerning medical products (Article 15: clinical research, Annex VIII: Declaration concerning products with a specific purpose, Annex X: clinical evaluation) for clinical research with sanitary products, carried out in the countries of the EU / EEA. All procedures maintain the quality of the clinical research data are described in the normalized procedures of LIDESEC, SL, an independent company responsible for the quality control of the study, these evaluations were carried out before the ethical committee of reserch (CEIC) of the Clinical Hospital of the University of Valencia, an independent body commissioned to evaluate the implementation protocols of clinical trials to ensure the safety of the participants and veracity of the results

Objectives of the study

The main goal of the study was to compare the effect of pharmacological Parkinson’s treatment with permanent needle acupuncture with a purely pharmacological treatment after 12 months. The secondary objective of the experiment was to measure the total change or rate of change after four, eight and twelve months, and the rate of change over the 12-month period obtained from the scores of patients with the following scales:
Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Rating measure of the intensity of depressive symptoms: Beck´s Depression inventory of the degree of concern to the various areas of daily life caused by the disease (work, social life, leisure, relationship And family relationship). Adaptation Evaluation scale of the support the patient receives from family and friends. Multidimensional Social Support Scale by Zimet. A Life Quality Questionnaire for disease Parkinson with 39 questions: Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire 39. The Influence of the Variables on the ratio of patients who show a decrease of 20% or more on the UPDRS scale after 12 months.


The insertion points of the permanent needles for the Parkinson treatment are selected individually. Apart from the introduction of the implants into central points, which coincide with the main characteristics of the disease, implants are also used in other specific points, depending on the suffering and the symptoms of each patient. In each implantation it is used between 100 and 120 needles, as many as the intensity of the symptoms require, in order to obtain a greater effect. In the control group, which did not receive any additional permanent acupuncture, the same procedure with which Equal number of needles (100-120), but none of the needles penetrate permanently into the patient’s ear, but creates microperforations at the sites corresponding to the suffering and symptoms of each patient.
To learn more about this Parkinson treatment, please visit:

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *