Dry needling (DN) by physical therapists is nothing new in VA.  When DN was first introduced, there was opposition by acupuncturists claiming that DN would not be safe in the hands of PTs, that DN would constitute a public health hazard, that PTs would cause spontaneous abortions by needling fictitious forbidden points, that the FDA would limit the sale of acupuncture needles to acupuncturists only, that the training for PTs is inadequate, etc. The many comments by acupuncturists in this comment section present basically the same unfounded arguments. Yet, the reality of DN by PTs in the vast majority of states and in many countries around the globe have provided unequivocal proof that DN by PTs is safe. A study I participated in showed that the risk of a significant adverse event such as a pneumo-thorax was less than 0.04% based in almost 8,000 DN treatments by Irish physiotherapists. While it is true that there have been a few isolated incidents throughout the country, the injury rate is so low, that the main malpractice insurance company of PTs in the US is not at all concerned.  Do we really believe that DN by PTs is so dangerous when an insurance company states otherwise? Let's not forget that acupunturists also have a low injury rate. A quick look at the literature shows occasional pneumothoraces, even subdural hematomas leading to paralysis and incontinence, cardiac tamponade, etc. caused by acupuncturists.  As a course provider of DN courses, nearly every acupuncturists (1 exception) who has attended our DN courses has agreed that DN as taught by us is "entirely different than anything I ever learned in acupuncture school and training." If acupuncturists are so concerned about their "bread and butter" as one person acknowledged, nothing stops acupuncturists from learning DN, which is entirely in line with what acupuncturist Amaro recommended in his column in Acupuncture Today.  None of the claims acupuncturists have made in the past and are making now have any validity and are nothing but a reflection of petty turf war and efforts to restrict PTs in the practice of physical therapy.  Recently, a Federal judge ruled that opposition by the NC acupuncture board was without merit.  In spite of opposition, there is no reason why DN would not be in the scope of PT practice, just as it is in the scope of veterinary medicine, dentistry, occupational therapy and athletic training in a growing number of states, chiropractic, etc.  When DN is performed by an L.Ac it would be considered as acupuncture.  When performed by a dentist it is dentistry. When performed by a PT it is physical therapy.