bonghan channels (scientific proof of meridians)

[gasmaster]

A very cool read...

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/ ... g.facebook

Another on same topic...

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-sci ... ture-works

[everything]

fascinating. a "light body" is pretty interesting. it sounds like eventually science can discover more about it if researchers are able to spend time on the subject.

[Bob]

Actually years back, I posted this clip on YouTube and there was a discussion which followed. I believe someone may have refuted this idea and the article and clip included seem pretty dated. Looks like it was not a major explanatory breakthrough or maybe someone has an update on this research?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyahTD7oB8w

Bong Han research
Published on May 1, 2008

In the biomedical physics Lab of the Seoul National University, research is done about the so called Bong Han duct. This thread like structure is following the meridians of acupuncture. It is very difficult to find those small transparent structures. This movie was created by KBS. We added the subtitles

[cdobe]

These structures are indeed very interesting. However, there is no indication, that they have anything to do with the meridians of TCM. I have read all of the available research, which isn't that much at this point, and it is already very clear, that the meridians and the Bonghan ducts or primo-vascular system do not match. The system follows blood and lymphatic vessels and is verified in some internal organs and interestingly in tumors. It has not been verified to exist in the skin, where most of the ordinary 12 meridians are supposed to be located. The system has so-called primo-nodes which have been suggested to be acupuncture points. And while you are able to find some of these nodes near places where acupuncture points are supposed to be, there are many more nodes in between, that are not known by acupuncture and TCM in general. Also, if you look at the tip size of the finest needles and compare them to the size of the nodes it is pretty improbable, that any acupuncturist would be able to hit these small structures.

[kenneth fish]

What is most notable is that none of this research has passed sufficient muster to be published in the more reputable journals of anatomy or physiology.

[gasmaster]

So it doesn't really seem to be true... should have figured it wasnt as cut and dry as the articles seem to want them to be. still interesting none the less in their own right.

[BonesCom]

What is most notable is that none of this research has passed sufficient muster to be published in the more reputable journals of anatomy or physiology.

+1

The first linked article is inaccurate in stating that we have no idea on how bilateral symmetry is generated during embryogenesis, there have been a number of genes identified in numerous organisms that are responsible for setting up this symmetry.

As Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[windwalker]

What is most notable is that none of this research has passed sufficient muster to be published in the more reputable journals of anatomy or physiology.

apparently neither has acupuncture

Scientific Reviews

Richardson and Vincent analyzed 28 studies of effect of acupuncture on pain, all published between 1973 and 1986 in English language peer-reviewed journals. Fifteen showed no difference in effectiveness between acupuncture and control groups. Thirteen showed some effectiveness for acupuncture over control groups, but not all controls were the same. (Some were compared to sham acupuncture, some to medical therapy, etc.) Overall, the differences were small [12-13].

The NCAHF Task Force on Acupuncture evaluated the above studies, as well as more recent ones, and found that reported benefits varied inversely with quality of the experimental design. The greater the benefit claimed, the worse the experimental design. Most studies that showed positive effects used too few subjects to be statistically significant. The best designed experiments - those with the highest number of controls on variables - found no difference between acupuncture and control groups.

In 1989, three Dutch epidemiologists reported similar conclusions about 91 separate clinical trials of acupuncture for various disorders. They also found that the stricter the controls, the smaller the difference between acupuncture and control groups [14].

Acupuncture is being used in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Because there are serious flaws in the way studies on rehabilitation have been performed, the results cannot be considered valid.

A successful medical procedure should be consistently effective in a large majority of trials, and be repeatable in the hands of most therapists. Acupuncture does not satisfy these basic criteria.

The American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs stated in a 1981 report that since acupuncture is an experimental procedure, it should be performed only in research settings by licensed physicians or others under their direct supervision. The report urged state medical societies to seek appropriate laws to restrict the performance of acupuncture to research settings [15].

The National Council Against Health Fraud believes that after more than twenty years in the court of scientific opinion, acupuncture has not been demonstrated effective for any condition.

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html

disclaimer: These are not my views nor do I agree with them.

[BonesCom]

The type of research design required to show the efficacy of a treatment in humans is very different from the research design that you would apply to defining the existence of a structure or process in an organism. The result from the former are much more "open" to interpretation and data manipulation.

Disclaimer: Stating there is no proof in the literature for something you believe works does not confirm the results of studies of another thing you believe in the existence of when said results are of a questionable nature.

[windwalker]

Disclaimer: Stating there is no proof in the literature for something you believe works does not confirm the results of studies of another thing you believe in the existence of when said results are of a questionable nature.

ok lets try it this way.

none of this research has passed sufficient muster

has acupuncture passed sufficient muster to be published by main stream medical journals
as a valid medical treatment ?

[BonesCom]

has acupuncture passed sufficient muster to be published by main stream medical journals
as a valid medical treatment ?

Well, according to your previous post; no.

[Alexatron]

Well if main stream medical journals don't endorse acupuncture who are we to question their wisdom and motives?



And if anyone thinks things have improved just consider is there still massive profits to be made in medicine? Yes? Nothing has changed.

I've had acupuncture to block pain whilst having a minor procedure done on my foot and it worked for me - that's all the proof I need. Saved me having a whole load of local anaesthetic injected into my foot.

[BonesCom]

Medical journals are different from scientific research journals (in so much as they will publish case studies which are probelmatic when it comes to peer review), the journals that Ken is referring to are the latter and the post from ww refers to finding from the NCAHF Task Force on Acupuncture.

The picture you have posted has nothing to do with either medical or scientific research journals.

Things have changed when it comes to publishing scientific research, no longer is access to most (if not all) of these journals dependent on subscription to printed copies. Furthermore the abstracts from almost all journals are freely available in public, searchable databases. The concern is not what won't be published, but in fact what will. This has been exemplified in the case of stem cell research where a number of "landmark" publications have been retracted because of the inability of other, independent researchers to replicate the results published.

In short: there is no conspiratorial coverup regarding the efficacy of acupuncture. Acupuncturists are paid, as are any other type of physical therapist. The big medico-corporate boogey man is not trying to suppress an efficacious therapy in order for them to line their pockets. If anything the pressure would come from the acupuncturists themselves to inflate the efficacy of acupuncture for their own gain. In this case, peer-reviewed scientitific journals would not publish spurious research. It's not even the journals choice, it (by and large) follows the reconmendations of the independent peer reviewers. A journals reputation is everything, but there is also intense competition between journals to publish high-impact research that will be heavily cited.

There was a thread a while back where we discussed the difficulties (including expense) of designing a properly controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy of acupuncture/qi gong etc... The efficacy of acupuncture is too dependent on a variety of factors, which, as the post by ww points out, means that the overall beneficial effects (when averaged out) become very small. The smaller the effect, the bigger the size of the trial must be in order to get statistically significant results, the bigger the associated cost....

[Alexatron]

The picture you have posted has nothing to do with either medical or scientific research journals.

I realize this. The reference made sense to me but if I have to explain it then obviously wasn't as obvious as I thought it was

. . . follows the recommendations of the independent peer reviewers.

This is where the process can fail and I'm not talking specifically about acupuncture studies. I have had some insight into this process and I can assure you just how 'independent' the reviewer is can be influenced by what boards of directors the reviewer also sits on. Its probably a minority of cases but they do exist.
I'm guessing its one of those topics where if you've made your mind up you'll only see what proves your POV and any evidence to the contrary will be discounted. I'm not going to try and convince anyone that this goes on - I believe I've seen it on a number of occasions and that has made me distrustful of the process.

[windwalker]

BonesCom wrote:
. . . follows the recommendations of the independent peer reviewers.

This is where the process can fail and I'm not talking specifically about acupuncture studies. I have had some insight into this process and I can assure you just how 'independent' the reviewer is can be influenced by what boards of directors the reviewer also sits on. Its probably a minority of cases but they do exist.

kinda of the point I was trying to make.

regardless of weather its considered valid or not, at this time in the west its mostly not.
my point was how could any study or finding confirm part of something that is said to be not real to begin with
by the main stream review med. process?
"ken" commented on it not making other main stream journals as being some type of validation for something that even the biases of has not been accepted. yet

just found it odd, to cite something in one case but not another regardless of the topic or ones own findings on it.