Scientific proof of acupuncture

[Jack Squat]

There has been alot of debate regarding whether or not TCM/acupuncture/qigong can be validated via the scientific method (which to some translates to "is it real" or "does it work").

After much research, I would like to share a small portion of what I have found:

Animal and human studies have demonstrated that acupuncture can cause multiple biological responses. These responses can occur locally (close to the site of the stimulation) or distally (at a distance). The studies briefly discussed below were some of the best because they defined the anatomy and physiology of the acupoints, how their stimulation affected other sites in the body, and what biochemical and physiological properties were elicited by acupuncture, resulting in changes in bodily response and medical outcome.

Bioelectrical properties- Niboyet, a French researcher, identified bioelectrical properties related to acupuncture. He scanned skin surfaces with a galvonometer, then stimulated points of low resistance with direct and alternating currents. He found that electrical conductance at acupoints is different from that at other skin sites and that stimulating acupoints results in physiologic responses not elicited from other skin sites similarly stimulated. Niboyet observed that points of lowered electrical resistance are usually found in the acupuncture zones illustrated on Chinese meridian charts.

Low resistance points- Grall verified Niboyet's work and found points of low resistance on the face and forearms corresponding to acupoints. Resistance values varied from subject to subject and from anatomical zone to anotomical zone. Values at acupoints ranged from 5 to 50 kilo-ohms, while nonacupoints ranged between .5 and 3 mega-ohms. When the low resistance points were traced on overlaying paper, they matched the classic acupuncture channels.

Radioactive tracing- A radioactive tracer, Technnetium 99, was injected into classical acupoints and into locations that were neutral (not acupoints). Pathways were compared by following the tracers with a scintillation camera. Radioisotope injected into acupoints diffused along a pattern corresponding to the classically described acupuncture channels, while neutral points did not. Others argued that transportation away from acupuncture and control points occured through the vein and lymphatic systems, not acupuncture networks.

Isotope migration- Darras, an investigator using nuclear tracers, rejected this last arguement by observing that the scanned pathway moved beyond a tourniquet blocking the surface peripheral blood circulation. Stimulation of the injected points with a needle, electricity, or helium-neon laser increased the migration rate along the channels. Since these rates did not correspond to vascular or lymphatic circulation rates, the authors concluded that the observed isotopic migration clearly demonstrated the pathways of acupuncture channels.

Radioactive isotopes were injected into human acupoints and tracked with a gamma imaging camera. Within 4-6 minutes, the isotopes traveled 30 centimeters along previously identified acupuncture meridian tracks. Isotopes were then injected into blood vessles at random points. These isotopes did not travel in any manner similar to how they traveled at acupoints, suggesting that meridians comprise a separate pathway system within the body.

I also found much research on "current resistance", "potential differences", "endogenous opiods" and many other interesting effects/mechanisms of acupuncture action.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS-
Acupuncture/TCM/qi gong is REAL, it WORKS. Modern science is trying to figure out what the ancients somehow knew thousands of years ago. I only put in research for the validity of the acupuncture meridians, but research is there for other aspects of TCM as well. I ask the skeptics which frequent this board (in anticipation of remarks like "Well that only proves that the channels exist"): If an ancient culture could determine the exact pathways (and specific points on the pathway) that the unseen, "non-measurable" force called qi moves thru, without the use of modern imaging/tracing techniques, and we proved that it was correct, why not listen to the other "truths" that they discovered (or at least recorded) as well? In my mind, one cannot separate acupuncture from qi gong or TCM. The core is the same. It does not matter to me whether the results are caused by "qi", opioids, or peripheral nerve conduction.

As it stands now, Western Medicine (as an institution) views acupuncture/TCM as a threat. So what do they initially do with all threats? Attack it and claim it's "psuedo-science" at best, fraud at worse (see the totally biased websites that others commonly quote from). Once this tactic is exhausted and it doesn't work, the next step is to control it and take it over so they get the revenue. Mark my words, once Western Medicine does determine the exact mechanisms of action, all of the sudden, acupuncture will indeed be "valid" and you can bet your rear-end that the MD's will take it over and all the sudden what was once ridiculed and frowned upon as "unscientific" and equal to "snake oil salesmen" will all of the sudden be "so technical and complex that I as your MD am the only one qualified to perform this amazing and complex medical procedure (I'm inducing analgesia via endogenous opioids, you know). Do you have insurance? No? Then I can't help you unless you pay cash up front"!!!!!!

Jack

[bodhitree]

Good info:
I wrote a research paper on TCM, and one of the best points I found was that accupuncture is widely used in veternary medicine. This completely eliminates the plasibo or suggestability theory. You cant tell a dog"ok this will make you feel better". In the USA at least, there is not much reasearch done on TCM because research is paid for mainly by Phamasudical companies, who want to develop drugs, not find ways for people to heal themselfs with the things inside of their own bodies. Very good thread!!!!

[chen zhen]

Nice info.
Acupuncture has been proven to hit precisely the nerve-meridians that exists in the body. What I have thought about is.. when the acupunctureists uses old charters of meridian lines that have existed for 1000's of years, how could the chinese of old find out where the nerves where placed, without doing any surgery?

[Former castleva]

" (see the totally biased websites that others commonly quote from)."

"Totally biased websites" serve to point out that there is disagreement on the validity of this medicine between experts.
Certainly if even one of them was not "totally biased",you would have to reconsider when in fact there is plenty of non-biased material shown and points raised that should be considered by any rational person.

"claim it's "psuedo-science" at best"

This is pseudoscience,unless argued otherwise.Your argument has a lot to do with physiology,one could sarcastically ask whether you think your gallbladder influences your reasoning? (physiology of TCM)

""Bioelectrical properties- Niboyet, a French researcher"

Picking this one as an example,could you show me some reference and also tell me something about the researcher(s) you are referring to (their possible expertise or lack of it and so on)
When I try to search on this subject,I can mostly come up with a TCM sites that like to rely on very similar testimonies,I have little knowledge on the exact subject,however,if my memory serves there are also contradicting "proofs".

"Acupuncture/TCM/qi gong is REAL, it WORKS"

If you´re basing this on what you said above,I believe you´re buying the fallacy of hasty generalization.
You will have to understand that despite what you consider to be convincing evidence for tcm´s efficiency,you must remember that there is also a great deal of evidence to contrary.
As my own note,I´d add that if we assume that skeptical stance of referring to placebo effect etc. be true,we would find at least some evidence for it´s validity from this above fact (was the method described as watertight&scientifical as one might hope,one could also expect the expected positive effect to be repeatable,which is does not seem to be)
To refute this evidence,requires one to subscribe to the fallacy of suppressed evidence.

"Modern science is trying to figure out what the ancients somehow knew thousands of years ago"

What makes you think so?

" and we proved that it was correct, why not listen to the other "truths" that they discovered (or at least recorded) as well? In my mind, one cannot separate acupuncture from qi gong or TCM. The core is the same"

What truths? Acupuncture is a part of TCM.Qi-gong is not related (in this context)

"I also found much research on "current resistance", "potential differences", "endogenous opiods" and many other interesting effects/mechanisms of acupuncture action."

On endogenous opioids I can comment on.It has been shown that acupuncture can trigger their release as it has been shown that you can cause the very same response yourself,ask someone to make you do it or stick a regular needle into your body which would be unpleasant of course.
Considering these facts,I would not consider this to be an argument for acupuncture (of course "other interesting mechanisms" like psychological arousal are worth mentioning)


"As it stands now, Western Medicine (as an institution) views acupuncture/TCM as a threat. So what do they initially do with all threats? Attack it and claim it's "psuedo-science" at best, fraud at worse (see the totally biased websites that others commonly quote from). Once this tactic is exhausted and it doesn't work, the next step is to control it and take it over so they get the revenue. Mark my words, once Western Medicine does determine the exact mechanisms of action, all of the sudden, acupuncture will indeed be "valid" and you can bet your rear-end that the MD's will take it over and all the sudden what was once ridiculed and frowned upon as "unscientific" and equal to "snake oil salesmen" will all of the sudden be "so technical and complex that I as your MD am the only one qualified to perform this amazing and complex medical procedure (I'm inducing analgesia via endogenous opioids, you know). Do you have insurance? No? Then I can't help you unless you pay cash up front"!!!!!!"

We have enough material for a strawman around here.
(If you were going for "appeal to emotion",then you probably chose the right target audience of course)

In total,we´ve been over this to a great degree.

[Jack Squat]

Former,

"Totall biased websites serve to point out...."

I disagree. A "totally biased" website would only promote one opinion, thus that's why it's totally biased. If these websites presented both sides of an arguement with equal representation, they would not be "totally biased".

"This is psuedoscience, unless argueing otherwise....."

I'm argueing otherwise. I list published scientific research. I didn't realize that JAMA, and all the other reputable references were publishing "psuedo science". If that's the case, if the medical journals don't publish "real" or non-psuedo science, where does one go? To one of the totally biased websites who don't even reveal who they are sponsored by? (sarcasm)

"Picking this one as an example, could you show me some reference...."

Why did you pick this one? If you really want me to, I'll give you the actual references, but one thing I've noticed is that if I do, you will find some thing wrong with the researcher or study which you will then use to invalidate the research findings. So, I don't want to waste my time. As an armchair quarterback who knows just enough to nit pick, you could find flaw with any study under the sun.

In addition, why do people try to hold acupuncture to a higher standard than other medical procedures. Do you know that there are many standard Western medical procedures that have less evidence-based research than AP? Why not attack those procedures? Orthoscopic knee surgery has been shown to be equal to placebo!!! This study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and AARP (American Association of Retired People) put it in their national magazine. So an invasive, expensive surgery, with a large amount of possible risk, was shown to be equal to placebo. If the surgery has been shown to only equal placebo, why do it then? Oh wait, they get $50 K for every time they do it. These are the people you so eagerly endorse.

"If you're basing this on what you said above....hasty generalization.... placebo effect........fallacy of suppressed evidence"

The placebo effect has been shown to not possibly be the only mechanism involved in acupuncture by animal studies. This has been discussed on the TCM forum before. In addition, ALL medicine (INCLUDING CHEMICAL) has been shown to be 33% placebo. This is common knowledge among medical professionals.

Don't even get me started on the suppressed evidence thing. Refer back to my previous posts (As a scientist, how does one conduct research? Either through private funding or research grants. Who does the funding? What do they have to gain? We've been here before)

I said: "Modern science is trying to figure out what the ancients knew..."
You said "What makes you think so...."

NIH setting aside $50 million for CAM research. This is the break that TCM has needed in the US. What finally made the NIH decide to do this? Genuine interest? No, it was a grassroots movement along with studies which showed how much the US public spends on alternative medicine. If the MD's can "prove" it works, the next step is for them to take it over......

"On endogenous opiods, I can comment on...."

Please. You're wasting my time. By your implication, sticking a sewing needle anywhere in my body will make for an effective treatment. How does this explain imaging studies that I referenced in my initial post. In addition, how does that explain the anit-nausea effects, ot the inverting of a breach baby, or the stimulation of the optic cortex, etc. I know, I know, it's all placebo, or psuedo-science, or simply not true, or ..............

I do not mean to degrade Western medicine. In fact, I endorse it. But I simply use examples of it's negative aspects to illustrate my points.

Former, I challenge you. You like to debate alot, but how much real world experience do you have? I have worked in a mental institution, have both psychological and medical training, and am currently employed by a hospital. That is real. I know what I have seen, not just what I have read. Go do some real digging. Spend some time with real sick people, in and out of hospitals. Go to the front line and see how well Western medicine handles some diseases. Interview the patients and do some case studies. Then go to an acupuncture clinic and do the same. Until then, I don't have much more to say to you.

Is acupuncture perfect? Of course not. Is Western medicine perfect? Of course not. But they BOTH are valid and can produce positive results.

Jack

[ZIM]

In total,we´ve been over this to a great degree. Yes, we have. You keep siderailing topics into "scientific" arguments. Look:

Traditional Chinese Medicine
Information exchange on the Chinese way of Health and Healing, including acupuncture, herbal medicine and tuina bodywork.

Qigong and Meditation
All aspects of Qigong (Chi Kung) and the meditation arts and philosophies of the Chinese culture.

I don't see where it says "science arguments." In fact, I read 'information exchange'. Maybe, just maybe people want to learn more about these topics, don't you think?

[Former castleva]

"I disagree. A "totally biased" website would only promote one opinion, thus that's why it's totally biased. If these websites presented both sides of an arguement with equal representation, they would not be "totally biased"."

You´re distorting my words.
You could easily notice that a many sites are not biased at all,for those that can be considered such,you can find countering sites for.
This indicates you have not read them very carefully.

"I'm argueing otherwise. I list published scientific research. I didn't realize that JAMA, and all the other reputable references were publishing "psuedo science". If that's the case, if the medical journals don't publish "real" or non-psuedo science, where does one go? To one of the totally biased websites who don't even reveal who they are sponsored by? (sarcasm)"

I don´t think credible sites produce pseudoscience either,I know that very credible magazines or sites can,however,report on pseudoscientific treatments and see how they turn out like.
An examination of the founding principles of these treatments makes them pseudoscientific by definition,this does not keep them from writing about them though.
You´re talking about "totally biased" sites again,now I think you´re in denial.

"Why did you pick this one? If you really want me to, I'll give you the actual references, but one thing I've noticed is that if I do, you will find some thing wrong with the researcher or study which you will then use to invalidate the research findings. So, I don't want to waste my time. As an armchair quarterback who knows just enough to nit pick, you could find flaw with any study under the sun. "

All the sites I spontaneously looked for could be considered "biased" if wanted.If you can give those references out,why don´t you just go ahead? Are you afraid that they are flawed?
You should know that these points are essential concerning your argument.

"In addition, why do people try to hold acupuncture to a higher standard than other medical procedures. Do you know that there are many standard Western medical procedures that have less evidence-based research than AP? Why not attack those procedures? Orthoscopic knee surgery has been shown to be equal to placebo!!! This study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and AARP (American Association of Retired People) put it in their national magazine. So an invasive, expensive surgery, with a large amount of possible risk, was shown to be equal to placebo. If the surgery has been shown to only equal placebo, why do it then? Oh wait, they get $50 K for every time they do it. These are the people you so eagerly endorse."

This is the second time by now,that you are referring to a single orthoscopic knee surgery study.
But you say that there are MANY procedures which have less evidence than medieval therapy,I´m unaware of the evidence for this claim.


"Please. You're wasting my time. By your implication, sticking a sewing needle anywhere in my body will make for an effective treatment. How does this explain imaging studies that I referenced in my initial post. In addition, how does that explain the anit-nausea effects, ot the inverting of a breach baby, or the stimulation of the optic cortex, etc. I know, I know, it's all placebo, or psuedo-science, or simply not true, or .............."

It explains a part of this.This has been addressed to some degree earlier.Stimulating someone´s optic cortex does not convince me of medical efficiency,I´d also like to see how it deals compared to X in "inverting a breach baby" as an example.
I´m not saying that a stab from a needle is an effective treatment,but regardless of the needle or even the impact itself,results are similar as far as the subject goes.

"NIH setting aside $50 million for CAM research. This is the break that TCM has needed in the US. What finally made the NIH decide to do this? Genuine interest? No, it was a grassroots movement along with studies which showed how much the US public spends on alternative medicine. If the MD's can "prove" it works, the next step is for them to take it over......"

Red herring fallacy.

"Former, I challenge you. You like to debate alot, but how much real world experience do you have? I have worked in a mental institution, have both psychological and medical training, and am currently employed by a hospital. That is real. I know what I have seen, not just what I have read. Go do some real digging. Spend some time with real sick people, in and out of hospitals. Go to the front line and see how well Western medicine handles some diseases. Interview the patients and do some case studies. Then go to an acupuncture clinic and do the same. Until then, I don't have much more to say to you."

Another red herring fallacy.

" ALL medicine (INCLUDING CHEMICAL) has been shown to be 33% placebo. This is common knowledge among medical professionals."

This argument is an extremely broad one.Appeal to authority of medical professionals is justified in one way,while having containing the ingredients for a fallacy since "medical professionals" remain anonymous,but if this is the case,I want you to elaborate on this and back this up with ways other than an anecodte.


ZIM,
when something is presented as science when it is not,that´s where the problem is.Think of a line like "Scientific proof...".

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

At the risk of ridicule from both sides of the arguement, i present my interpretation of experience..

"placebo effect".. a similar result effected without conformity to the premise of the experiment.. OR, evidence of the potential of the mind to effect healing exclusive to commonly accepted modalities..

Why is it that science, when faced with evidence that exceeds its ability to verify, seeks to invalidate rather than investigate? I oten consider the ego factor, science seems to believe that it is responsible for all of mankinds advances.

Each belief system can and will rationalize its beliefs.. on the otherhand, accepting the results and building from there is frequently overlooked in favor of protecting the chosen belief system.

Ultimately, i sense that there will be a marriage of East/West medical theories.. as it should be. Exclusivity only hinders progress.

Suppose someone discovers that whistling a particular tune cures cancer, yet.. no logical reason supports this cure.. certainly, it would not be discarded as snake-oil medicine (bear with the hypothetical for a moment and suppose that the effective rate of cure is 90%).. The prescription might be a class on how to precisely whistle the required tune with the caveat that no one knows why this works.. My point is this, that faced with varying results or less than perfect rates of success does not invalidate the successes obtained by modalities outside the rigors of scientific "proof".. that the real injustice is to betray the evidence and its potential to relieve the suffering of even a few people in favor of "scientific evidence"..

As logic and reason digs its heels into the sand and proclaims fraud and fallacy to the masses, it may well persuade some uncertain people to avoid treatments that could offer relief that science itself cannot.. Unless science can "prove" negative or harmful side-effects of alternative treatments (and i mean specifically on a case by case basis) it should support whatever results and treatments improve the quality of one's life.. Notably, i find that Eastern medicine sometimes refers patients to Western medicine, the opposite is seldom the case.. In short, "united we stand/divided we fall" is supremely applicable in the East/West search for health and well-being..

Just another perspective.. Be well..

[Former castleva]

"Suppose someone discovers that whistling a particular tune cures cancer, yet.. no logical reason supports this cure.. certainly, it would not be discarded as snake-oil medicine (bear with the hypothetical for a moment and suppose that the effective rate of cure is 90%).. The prescription might be a class on how to precisely whistle the required tune with the caveat that no one knows why this works.. My point is this, that faced with varying results or less than perfect rates of success does not invalidate the successes obtained by modalities outside the rigors of scientific "proof".. that the real injustice is to betray the evidence and its potential to relieve the suffering of even a few people in favor of "scientific evidence".. "

I guess whistling could work as an analogy.
Two things that we would want to remember while hearing about magical whistle cure would be the following;
-Why does whistle cure work? Whistledoctors say it works because it activates the person´s natural healing cababilities,and stimulates his energies (defined no further)
-"faced with varying results" (A great quote to use)
Left with little to search for with rational manners,whistle cure is tried and it comes out it works "with varying results".What whistledoctors say sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis,and instead of their explanations,various previously discovered mechanisms are thought to be involved.
It is concluded that non-falsifiable nature of whistle cure,which also gives varying results (no to some) all too often,the case for whistle cure is considered vague.

"Why is it that science, when faced with evidence that exceeds its ability to verify, seeks to invalidate rather than investigate? I oten consider the ego factor, science seems to believe that it is responsible for all of mankinds advances. "

"Science" does not exactly say so,this sounds like a strawman.You´ll be better of saying "people",and still you have to be careful to not slip anything.
Science is a method,it does not believe anything.

[cha kuen]

There are very few people out there that are against TCM, like former is. Anyways I just wanted to throw in there that there is this acupuncturist in San Diego named Mike Callistan (sp?) who is the main acupuncture for the San Diego Chargers, NFL football team.

That's right. Atheltes that are paid millions of dolllars a year are placing their trust in TCM. TCM isnt' going anywhere, the MD's are realizing that TCM is taking more and more of their patients away and now they are going and leanring some acupuncture.

It sucks that MD's only need like 200 hours to be certified to practice Acupuncture, but their knowledge of tcm is very shallow.

A surgeon that works in the ER room is also taking private lesssons from Share Lew, a reknown Taoist healer in SD as well.

[Former castleva]

"That's right. Atheltes that are paid millions of dolllars a year are placing their trust in TCM. "

Whether you tell us about athletes that earn millions of dollars,or athletes that earn tens of dollars,is not relevant.
Neither have you shown that these athletes are "placing their trust in TCM".Even if the majority of such athletes would be shown to place their trust in it,it still would not make it any more valid.

[fa_jing]

So tell me FormerC, I suppose you've had accupuncture performed on you 4 or 5 times, and it's done nothing for you?

[dwid]

It sucks that MD's only need like 200 hours to be certified to practice Acupuncture, but their knowledge of tcm is very shallow.

Probably because MD's already have a pretty sophisticated knowledge of the human body. They don't need to know the TCM theory of why X technique works, they just need to learn the mechanics of how to do it.

In the case of things like acupuncture, the conventional theory of why the technique works is the main thing that has detracted from mainstream acceptance.

You tell people that sticking a needle into point X affects the nervous system ultimately resulting in a specific effect, and most people will unblinkingly accept this.

You tell people that sticking a needle into point X affects an invisible network of channels that contain a form of energy undetectable to science and that this network contains sort of metaphorical organs that have various effects on psychology and physiology, and they're going to trip over themselves trying to get the hell away from you.

The big trouble with traditional approaches, I think, is the people deeply entrenched in those approaches who have accepted them part and parcel, and are threatened by attempts to understand legitimate mechanisms by which things like acupuncture and herbal medicine work.

The fact is, it took a lot of trial and error on the part of the "ancients" to find these solutions to various problems, and energy theory was likely just one way to try to integrate a lot of disparate information into a comprehensive theory. It's a sort of baby and bathwater thing.

[dwid]

Yes, we have. You keep siderailing topics into "scientific" arguments. Look:

Zim, I don't think you can call it siderailing when the thread is called "scientific proof of acupuncture." Questioning said "proof" is very much on-topic.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

That anyone would dismiss anything that doesn't fit into such a rigid Model as FC espouses, is deficient in concept and practice.. i cannot measure or quantify such intangibles as love or hate, nor can i deny their existence.. What we witness, and buy into, is a role played by someone that enjoys the struggle we each have with describing the indescribable.. We each know our truths, FC knows his own truth.. so be it. his redundant lapse into meaningless "strawman" or "red herring" comments is simply the blinders that limit his own vision of a grander universe.. leave him be, he has a right to his opinions.. too much time is wasted describing the elephant to the blind man..

Of course acupuncture works.. and i don't need proof to convince me of it, my evidence is firsthand.. of course Qigong works, my evidence is firsthand.. FC's rejection of such notions is premised on constrained procedures, and evidence manipulated by others, so what.. likely we will not encounter each other.. more likely, such narrow-minded perspectives will not diminish the benefits of Qigong or acupuncture.. too many other topics worthy of mind-play than trying to open the eyes of the self-blinded..

Be well..

[dwid]

i cannot measure or quantify such intangibles as love or hate, nor can i deny their existence..

You also wouldn't want to rely on a consistent dose of one or the other to keep you alive.

Things like love and hate don't need to be quantified. Things like penicillin do.

I would consider myself very moderate in comparison to Castleva, or to you or Repulsive Monkey for that matter, but to argue that there's no point in attempting to quantify something being passed off as medicine does nothing to support its validity as such.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Things like love and hate don't need to be quantified. Things like penicillin do.

Why? Why not?

Again, you adjust the game to fit your desires.. if penicillin should be quantified, why shouldn't Love or hate?.. Could it be that it negates the arguement?

The most compelling arguement for the intangibles is the vast numbers of returning practitioners and testimonials.. if it works, why deny it because of lack of quantifiable proof.. just accept the evidence (testimonials) and give it an unprejudiced try..

I'll move on now.. weary from the cries of sterile science, the real world beckons.. the real world where the mystery is also the magic..

Be well..

[Former castleva]

" FC knows his own truth.. so be it. his redundant lapse into meaningless "strawman" or "red herring" comments is simply the blinders that limit his own vision of a grander universe.. leave him be, he has a right to his opinions.. too much time is wasted describing the elephant to the blind man.."


If you are to argue,bring up a logical argument.

" i cannot measure or quantify such intangibles as love or hate, nor can i deny their existence.. "

We are talking about medicine,not emotions.

"Of course acupuncture works.. and i don't need proof to convince me of it, my evidence is firsthand.. of course Qigong works, my evidence is firsthand.. FC's rejection of such notions is premised on constrained procedures, and evidence manipulated by others"

Do keep in mind that not everyone is impressed without this proof.When you make statements like the one above (constrained procedures etc.),you may be expected to back them up.

"more likely, such narrow-minded perspectives will not diminish the benefits of Qigong or acupuncture.. too many other topics worthy of mind-play than trying to open the eyes of the self-blinded.."

Why are the perspectives "narrow-minded"? What about "self-blinded"?
Add all loaded terms you wish,but it will not support an argument.In fact,it will only demonstrate your (the you being a general one) inability to produce one.

[dwid]

Again, you adjust the game to fit your desires.. if penicillin should be quantified, why shouldn't Love or hate?.. Could it be that it negates the arguement?

My point, which I think was rather obvious, was that penicillin needs to be quantified because, like many things, not enough of it won't help you and too much will kill you. I'm not trying to tear the magic from your world, I'm simply establishing that it's reasonable for some things to be held to a different standard than others. If the only claim made about qi gong, etc... is that it makes you feel good, then there is no need for further analysis. However, when you start saying that qi gong will significantly extend your life, cure cancer, etc... then it is reasonable to expect some proof to the validity of such claims.

I understand we are coming at this from differing perspectives. Would it surprise you to know that I have learned a variety of qi gongs and still practice some (not as much as I should).

The fact that is quickly apparent here is that many on the spiritual side of the debate are every bit as inflexible as the stodgiest of scientists.

[Former castleva]

"just accept the evidence (testimonials) "

Anecdotal evidence cannot be considered evidence,as far as logic goes.

[Daredevil]

I strongly recommend anyone to get their own proof. What's there to lose (compare with what you have to gain)?

If it happens to work for you, **** the scientific proof. You want the effects, not the causes, anyway.

If you're a scientist looking to advance the field, then by all means seek the proof. Otherwise it's just air coming out of your ass like from any fundamentalist.

[Former castleva]

"If you're a scientist looking to advance the field, then by all means seek the proof. Otherwise it's just air coming out of your ass like from any fundamentalist."

As dwid said,this thread was about scientific proof.

"I strongly recommend anyone to get their own proof. What's there to lose (compare with what you have to gain)?"

Financial losses&loss health-wise is a possibility.

[RAF]

http://groups.msn.com/NeiWaiChiaKungFu/thismonthsarticlescientificstudyofchiandmeridians. msnw

Here is a little piece from that Tom posted on the another site.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/culturalstudies/tpp/tpp2/frank.pdf , at pp. 24-25 (see p. 22 for Henry Look's recollection of Yu Peng-xi).

[Former castleva]

PubMed´s;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2339006&dopt=Abstract

http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/1102/acu.html

[cha kuen]

The only reason people say TCM is all about the mind is because they can't imagine how a needle, or herbs, or chi kung can work. They don't understand it so they make some stupid assumption.


If TCM is all "mental" then western can be mental as well. My friend has headaches all day, her left ear hurts, has a lump on her throat, dry throat and a funny head feeling. She went to her MD's and took many pills for years.....this TOO SHOULD have been the mental effect. After all, she was seeing a "doctor" and paying a lot of money to her pills and cat scans...and taking the pills she HOPES it will work, but ....it didn't.

anyways, there is a main acupucnturist for the SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, TCM getting into the professtional sports. Millionair players being treated by tcm..yes....success.. =]

[Former castleva]

"If TCM is all "mental" then western can be mental as well. My friend has headaches all day, her left ear hurts, has a lump on her throat, dry throat and a funny head feeling. She went to her MD's and took many pills for years.....this TOO SHOULD have been the mental effect. After all, she was seeing a "doctor" and paying a lot of money to her pills and cat scans...and taking the pills she HOPES it will work, but ....it didn't."

Hardly "mental",whether she was helped or not (anecdote).

"anyways, there is a main acupucnturist for the SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, TCM getting into the professtional sports. Millionair players being treated by tcm..yes....success.. =]"

Financial succes for-? Cannot disagree.

[bob10]

Originally posted by Former castleva
[B
Anecdotal evidence cannot be considered evidence,as far as logic goes. [/B]

It seems that it can when the evidence points the "right" way :D

Taiji masters or similar who die at an early age are conveniently ignored, people that qigong fails to cure are conveniently ignored - or worse still, it is somehow their own fault that the qigong didn't work - people that acupuncture hasn't worked for are conveniently ignored.

Anecdotal evidence works both ways, it seems that whatever belief system you adopt colours how you use the information.

[Former castleva]

I agree.
However,it´s pretty much as worthless both ways.No matter how much of it you gather.

[vikinggoddess]

I don't know if this research is translated into English anywhere, but I saw a video- taped lecture by some Chinese OMD lecturers that was translated into English. I have no way to find out where or when these studies took place, as the library I checked it out from was shut down. But anyway, they did pain tolerence studies on rabits where first they found that acupuncture increased pain tolerence in rabits, second they tranfered the cerebral spinal fluid from these rabits into rabits that received no acupuncture. This second group of rabits had increased pain tolerence, like the first group, with out acupuncture.

A nasty study, admittedly, but it shows that acupuncture acts on the brain at the biochemical level. I was really disapointed a year or 2 ago when the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine proposed nothing about looking to other countrys that are successfully using and researching different types of medicines. I think it would really be great if CAM set up some grants for researchers to go to China and figure out what promising research is going on instead of trying to reinvent the wheel over here. There are plenty of Chinese who obtained their PhD's in the US, who would be able to understand, judge and translate these types of research studies and make some reviews and recommendations.

[RAF]

Angina Pectoris I
by Ballegaard S; Meyer CN; Trojaborg W.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homepage | Research Subject Index | Cardivascular


Acupuncture in angina pectoris: does acupuncture have a specific effect?



Journal of Internal Medicine, 1991 Apr, 229(4):357-62.
(UI: 91225644)
Pub type: Clinical Trial; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial.
AT: UCLA Biomed W1 J0674H
(PE title: Journal of internal medicine.)



Abstract: To overcome the methodological problems of blinding the patients and the acupuncturist in acupuncture trials, 33 patients with stable angina- pectoris, who were randomized to either genuine or sham acupuncture, received electroacupuncture by another acupuncturist, and the change in skin temperature was recorded. It was found that the change in skin temperature correlated significantly with the degree of improvement following both genuine and sham acupuncture. Fourteen patients with no decrease in skin temperature exhibited a significantly better response to acupuncture than 19 patients who showed a decrease in skin temperature (G II). In the former group, there was a 15% median improvement in exercise tolerance (G II 0%), a 678 improvement in anginal attack rate (G II 38), and an 84% improvement in nitroglycerine consumption (G Ir 50%). A significant correlation was found between the duration of disease and the effect of acupuncture. It is concluded that both genuine and sham acupuncture have a specific effect on some angina pectoris patients in addition to the effect of pharmacological therapy.


http://acupuncture.com/Research/ResInd-all.htm

[ctoepker]

Earlier in the discussion much was made of the placebo affect and the common notion that 1/3 of placebo control groups get better. This affect is often attributed to the amazing healing power of the mind, etc.

However, recent studies have shown that in fact that notion is a myth.

http://hideinplainwebsite.com/Placebodoc.htm

From the above linked New York Times article
"The investigators analyzed 114 published studies involving about 7,500 patients with 40 different conditions. The report found no support for the common notion that, in general, about a third of patients will improve if they are given a dummy pill and told it is real."

On another point, much has been made of discussion styles. When sections of the discussions are rightly labelled "red herring," etc. the response seems to be a discounting of the very real observations. Does this advance the discussion? It seems as if folks are dismissing a real POV instead of engaging it. In other words, isn't it hypocritical to write someone else's opinion off as hopelessly mired in logic, science, and "western" constraints while standing on similarly mired "eastern" ground?

I see that many people believe this works. Maybe it does. If it does, it seems clear that it works for reasons other than those currently stated. For example, in another thread this article:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/acufacts.htm

gives a pretty good outline of the history of one aspect of TCM and its transportation abroad. When one realizes that current understandings of the practices are not connected to the "T" of Traditions at all, the stance is weakened.

Be that as it may, when faced with new information, one cannot simply write it off. Either one's assumptions are wrong or reality is. So far, no one has unduly suffered from examining their assumptions....

CT

[Former castleva]

" Earlier in the discussion much was made of the placebo affect and the common notion that 1/3 of placebo control groups get better. This affect is often attributed to the amazing healing power of the mind, etc.

However, recent studies have shown that in fact that notion is a myth.

http://hideinplainwebsite.com/Placebodoc.htm "

The thing I dislike about articles like that,the article itself being legitimate,is their authoritative note.Yes,it raises points but not enough to convince me that dearly held placebo effect is a "myth".The article was not exactly new (not old) but they´re really raising just as conventional explanations to replace the placebo effect.The important thing is that those explanations (talk about condition´s natural course) has been addressed together WITH placebo,which the document does not let you know.I´d like to see a stance on nosebo.

[Tak]

The most compelling arguement for the intangibles is the vast numbers of returning practitioners and testimonials..

Well, no, this isn't really a good argument at all. This has been used to support every popular religion and cult, as well as every folk remedy, legitimate or not, and wide varieties of financial scams.

[ctoepker]

FCV,

Perhaps you'll like this one better....

http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,NAV4-42_SAR1112,00.shtml


Of particular note from the article:

But after nearly 50 years of acceptance, the placebo effect is now being questioned. In a recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche of the University of Copenhagen and Nordic Cochran Center reported the results of their recent study. They reviewed journal articles looking for the original research stating that 35-percent of patients improve if given a placebo. All the papers they looked at did not include original research on the placebo effect but cited a reference. When they looked up the paper being referenced, it cited another reference. It turns out that the original source of the statement was a 1955 article “The Powerful Placebo” published in The Journal of the American Medical Association. The paper was written by Henry Beecher, who had been chief of anesthesiology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Dr. Beecher had analyzed about a dozen studies and came up with the 35-percent figure.

I put "Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche placebo" into Google and got all sorts of responses. I'm sure you'll find the "deconstructions" of the work very interesting too.

Example: http://www.hideinplainwebsite.com/Placeboo.html

Later,
CT

[Former castleva]

Thanks.
I have not had the time to drag myself trough those sites so far,I´ll be trying to as soon as possible.

[RAF]

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2003/nov/11taichi.html
http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/forums/

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2003/nov/11mao.html

"Credit for the renaissance should be given to Mao Tse Tung. One of his noted quotations is, "Traditional Chinese medicine is a great treasure. It must be thoroughly studied and elevated to a higher level." "Credit" should also be given to the United States, which has imposed harsh economic sanctions and embargoes against China ever since the Korean War. Without adequate Western medical supplies, China had to rely on TCM and "barefoot doctors" to provide health care to its one billion citizens.

After the Zhou-Nixon summit in 1972, TCM was reintroduced to the West. Its popularity rose quickly. One out of ten adults in the U.S. tried TCM last year, and a number of TCM colleges have been established across the nation. The number of practitioners has increased more than tenfold in the past 20 years. China has played an important role by providing scholars and clinicians to become the backbone of TCM educators and practitioners worldwide. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health has established the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Its annual budget is now more than $100 million. Some major medical schools have set up offices for integrative medicine. Their larger mission is to integrate Eastern and Western medicine, which China started doing 40 years ago.

To prepare for the integration, TCM curriculum should incorporate more courses of Western clinical and basic science. The length of study should be increased to accommodate the additional training. It will help the graduates to conduct scientific research to find out why and how TCM works. This is important for the advancement and acceptance of TCM, not only by the public, but also the scientific community. Education and research through science are the driving forces for the eventual integration of Eastern and Western medicine. It is possible that one day there will be only one integrative health system, where practitioners of both fields will work side-by-side. "

Willie Mao, PhD, LAc
La Crescenta, California


http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/ask/

[vikinggoddess]

To prepare for the integration, TCM curriculum should incorporate more courses of Western clinical and basic science. The length of study should be increased to accommodate the additional training. It will help the graduates to conduct scientific research to find out why and how TCM works. This is important for the advancement and acceptance of TCM, not only by the public, but also the scientific community. Education and research through science are the driving forces for the eventual integration of Eastern and Western medicine. It is possible that one day there will be only one integrative health system, where practitioners of both fields will work side-by-side.

Integration is important and must occur carefully without preconceived notions to assimilate it into the western biomedical model. Though I do not disagree with that high standards of clinical and western science are valuable for Chinese medicine practitioners, I favor an emphasis on increased training and experience in clinical research philosophy, design and implementation, knowledge of statistics, analysis and presentation of research, professional collaborations, etc. To patients needing effective treatment the most important aspect for integration of Chinese medicine with Western medicine is not explaining things like how qi and acupuncture work at the basic science level but rather clinical studies showing the efficacy of particular treatment methods. I would like to see more a studies like the one by Cardini & Weixin in JAMA "Moxibustion for correction of breech presentation: a randomized controlled trial." Yes, moxa works very well to turn the breech baby, 75%. Every acupuncture student learns this simple treatment protocol. There are so many other long-taught methods that are calling out to be tested. I would like to see more simple practical-application clinical studies like this, coming from a purely Chinese medical perspective.

[ctoepker]

Originally posted by vikinggoddess
Integration is important and must occur carefully without preconceived notions to assimilate it into the western biomedical model. Though I do not disagree with that high standards of clinical and western science are valuable for Chinese medicine practitioners, I favor an emphasis on increased training and experience in clinical research philosophy, design and implementation, knowledge of statistics, analysis and presentation of research, professional collaborations, etc.

VikingGoddess,

I find this perspective most interesting...I too often wonder what the future of science might bring to us. I mean, as a historian I see Chinese medicine as developing and advancing as new information and tools are made available to Chinese scientists. Sadly, trends in TCM these days seem to be to look backwards for validity (e.g. statements often made like "The 'Yellow Emperor's Classic' is a time-tested methodology for cures because it is 5,000 years old.")

I believe that there may be something interesting in TCM outlook, but continuing to view it in isolation from other information and advancements is a mistake. Not only that, it is not a mistake the Chinese themselves made in researching to develop the knowledge to its current state. Perhaps clinical studies are useful.

Simply put, I look forward to a time in the future when both views will have fully informed each other and something new is understood...not 'eastern,' not 'western' but just useful in curing human suffering.

Currently it is my perception that 'Western' medicine is being rather open to investigating TCM claims. However, TCM is being very slow (resistant even) to absorbing cell theory, updated human anatomies, etc. I wonder how that will change if people who bring those issues up are treated as heretical, small minded and generally stuck in a 'backwards' mindset.


Sincerely,
CT

[vikinggoddess]

I understand what you mean about TCM being slow to acknowlege cell theory, etc. Closed mindedness never gets you anywhere no matter what your background though. I think this is probably actually more of an issue with TCM practitioners in the US, who often have had bad experience with biomedicine medicine practice, compared to Chinese TCM doctors who have, from what I understand, full western medical (at least by Chinese standards which I am not familiar with) and Chinese medical training. I don't agree that Western MD's are particularly open to TCM, but rather American patients are open to TCM, though I hope I am wrong about the MDs.

I think that a significant number, if not the majority, of MD's work from the biased assumption that high-tech biomedicine medicine always leads to better outcomes for the patient. This is simply not the case, as we see from the medical literature, for example, that midwifes acheive equally good or better outcomes in home births & birthcenters compared to obstetritions in hospitals. Another problem, actually is the continued belief-driven rather than research driven practices of Medical Doctors. For example, unneccessary episiotomies are still rather standard in hospital births, even though it is coming out that older women who received this procedure are the ones who are now having surgery to repair vaginal & uterine prolapse and urinary incontinence. There are many similar problematic practices related to childbirth at a hospital, for example not allowing women to drink and eat in childbirth, scheduled C-sections, higher C-section rates during the weekends, etc. I recommend the highly researched "The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth" by Professional Labor Support-woman Henci Goer, which gives a lot of insight into problems coming form belief-driven medicine in Obstetrics.

It seems that TCM practitioners and Medical Doctors both can see the bad points of each others medical system. If each profession tried harder to follow through with clinical research and apply of proven clinical research methods, respectively, integration would naturally follow.

[cha kuen]

VKMID,

MD's are only required to study liek 200 hours of chinese medicine to be able to practice. Why? Because MD's rule the world. Many MD's who study TCM for 200 hours get only the very basics, the top 20 points to use.

There is not a set of points to use for this pain and that. It varies person to person, their life style, job, work, excercise, stress, worry, emotion - all of those are addressed in chinese medicine.

ANYWAYS, HERE"S A **** BRIGHT IDEA> Instead of arguing this and that, lets state our OWN experiences.

Former, you are ..17 years old? You need to get some experince or treatment and tell us how that goes for you. Have you ever had TCM treatment? Probably not..


My left shoulder has been fixed by TCM. My chronic neck pain and lower back has been treated and only gotten better with TCM. I've tried MD's and they said nothign is wrong with my neck and that my lower back would NEVER be the same. They told me to stretch and do situps, but that never released any of the pain or stiffness.

I have TMJ as well. MD's and chiropractors told me to get a mouth guard, custom made from a dentist. I did that and I wore it everynight, and it didnt' get any better. I have yet to try TCM for this yet, but the guys I know said that TMJ should go away with meditation or chi kung practice. I recently joined a tai chi classs so i'll update my OWN Experience with that later.



This post marks the end of the B/S of "this artcile says this and that." Lets post our experiences. then theres' no yada yada bull crap.

A friend of mine got into a car accident, after one chi kung treatment, he got all better. My teahcer in hong kong went to see this TCM dude for her long time neck problem. In one treatment, poof, gone! I waqs there to witness it. What else? name some experinces and lets put this arguing to sleep.

[vikinggoddess]

oh, you want some anecdotes...

i don't have allergies/chronic rhinitis (life long problem) anymore since i started following a chinese nutritional diet and taking chinese herbs. the main herb was huang qi/ astragalus + Spleen qi tonics like dan shen, shan yao, etc. took self-prescribed raw-herb formula every day for a few months, and now i just cook up huang qi a couple of times a month.

you want some other anecdotes? one of many... heard of 5 needle protocol ear acupuncture for relief from drug withdrawals. here's a twist: someone called me last week asking if i could teach them over the phone to do ear acupuncture for the girlfriend who was crying desperately in the back ground after having reduced her methadone dosage. ya, right, teach ear acupuncture over the phone. instead i suggested vigorous massage to the ears until they felt hot and were red. this is generally what is experienced by people coming off drugs after the ear acupuncture. turns out the his massage worked very well; she fell asleep right after. he also tried massaging his own ears, but could not achieve the hot/ red effect. thinking i should follow up on this. would be great if self ear massage is as effective as ear acupuncture for drug withdrawals. tempting to try to pull off a ghetto research study. definately no shortage of crack heads around here.

[GeneChing]

I used to teach experimental psychology, so the Placebo effect was a big issue. To me, it was this funny way science described something it couldn't really control, akin to hypnosis. It was the human element.

Now, I do volunteer work for the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic and I use the theory of Placebo effect all the time when working with patients. It doesn't always work, but it works enough time for me to keep using it. It's not like it's a big investment, or that there are even any laws binding it. For example, I specialize in Intense Psychedelic Reaction treatments, and I have often given patients a "pill" to bring them down. That pill has been everything from aspirin to altoids. Now, under a doctor's supervision, we can actually give someone a valium or something, but why waste our precious resources when we have plenty of altoids and the effect is actually better. With valium, the patient may get to sleepy to get home. With altoids, they come down plus have fresh breath to boot!

The problem with science, especially in medicine, is that it's all about sterility. You cannot conduct any experiment without controllling all your variables. And humans are big variables. Science doesn't get down and dirty, on the street level, where the real healing must be done. Now this doesn't mean I reject science by any means. It just means that science is as contextually bound as anything else. If TCM is all faith healing, let me feel the faith. It's cheaper and more ethical.