Realizing that this is not a venue for discussion, but since I am mentioned by name in another comment I am responding.  I have reviewed the biomedical literature related to this topic thoroughly, and for years.  All studies claiming to show effects have design flaws that make it impossible to attribute any response to be specific to "dry needling."  There is no animal model to study "trigger points," because there has been nothing revealed in humans that is consistent with their existence as a local pathophysiology (there is no doubt that there are consistency differences in muscles).  But, dry needling in animals is used for produce two pathology models.  There is no interexaminer reliability for the detection of "trigger points," including David Simons (manuscript referenced in our article.  These are snippets: all considered, the evidence does not support the practice.  I believe that it was contrived by people not licensed to to perform acupuncture and "wet" needling (two other practices that have also dramatically failed to show specific effects). So, why consider using it, let alone licensing it?