bonghan channels (scientific proof of meridians)

[yeniseri]

When more people begin to see benefits of acupuncture (personal observation and experience), that is the only paradigm that is important.
Health care cost are sky rocketing and the least invasive and least expensive intervention has the potential to revolutionize the health care industry. As of now do no harm but that oath does the opposite to patients today. Just look at medication and surgical errors at the ground level. Plus, it was recently quantified that the AMA, through back door MDs were funded to 'bad talk' negatively the effects of non allopathic intervention so money does carry a "big stick" (as in intimidation and longevity) in the health care arena.

[gasmaster]

Im not sure that anyone is negating acupuncture, as it is a proven method of treatment. rather that there is no quantifiable proof in the scientific world of what is really happening. That's what I found interesting about these channels. there's still so much we don't know about the body, and for anyone in any discipline to negate anything that works because it is outside of their scope of understanding is ignorant. Still, there is a lot of crap that happens in the name of money, that is undeniable.

[windwalker]

there's still so much we don't know about the body, and for anyone in any discipline to negate anything that works because it is outside of their scope of understanding is ignorant.

wow, had to this read again,,,on RSF a first

what I do find strange or odd, is the inconsistencies between agreeing with and supporting
such things as acupuncture which so far has no western scientific bases, and yet that same science
is used to negate things on other subjects which are supported by the same TCM theory that underlies acupuncture..

gets back to ones own experience which depending on the subject
either gets called into question or not.
In acupuncture its real, and works for those who's experience says it does
and not for others who's experience says it does not, it does not.
They tend to use science as the final authority...

"Mexican jumping beans" gotta jump

[Sean]

No, they do not have to jump. They choose freely to jump.
Stop confounding everything.

[everything]

"Science" is not some monolithic arbiter or Wikipedia of Truth.

Scientists do experiments in some very, very narrow area. They try to reject a null hypothesis, which means their hypothesis might be on to something. That's pretty much it on the technical side afaik.

On the business side, funding tries to follow money and that may usually mean offering a product such as a drug.

That means there may be little incentive if you sell drugs to fund this kind of research and if you somehow do this kind of research it is way too broad to find the hypothesis that Explains How Acupuncture Works.

[BonesCom]

. . . 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 sure it does, but as you said in the minority of cases. I too have insight into this process as both a peer-reviewer and one who has had their research peer-reviewed. It's definately not a perfect process, but it's the best we have. If you have solid results, done with rigour and interpreted correctly then you will be published, maybe not by every journal but by one with integrity.

[/quote]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[/quote]
Ditto

[BonesCom]

Thanks Imon this is gold, and pertinent in this discussion:

[MiaoZhen]

It is a bit inaccurate to say that acupuncture studies haven't been published in mainstream scientific literature. There is a lot of acupuncture research being done, and a lot of it being published. I teach courses on scientific writing to acupuncture doctoral students and many of our students get articles published in both CAM as well as more mainstream journals.

There is a difference though between outcomes based research as well as mechanistic studies. Certainly, the exact mechanism of action that underlies acupuncture is still an open question. But that is the same as mechanism of action for many conventional therapies/drugs. For example, nitroglycerin (used for dilating blood vessels in cardiac patients) was used for over 100 years before we knew what mechanism of action was (it was only discovered in 2002).

I encourage those people really interested in acupuncture research to check out the Society for Acupuncture Research (http://acupunctureresearch.org/).

Channels are another and perhaps bigger question. As well as the question of what Qi is. Personally (as a professional doctor of Chinese medicine) I do not believe that Qi is "energy." It is a much bigger concept than that. I also do not necessarily believe that the channels exist the way many people think of them as existing - they are not just pathways that some mystical electric energy travels through. I believe the channels are a pedagogical tool to help us (i.e., doctors) understand all the intricate connections in the body. Channel theory is just a theory, like all other scientific theories. If we look at Chinese medical history we can see that the channels we see in acupuncture books today were not always universally thought of in the same way by all doctors, or the same way in different periods of history.

Henry

[Andy_S]

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

Answer One: Frankly, I have no idea as reading peer-reviewed medical journals is not my idea of fun.
Answer Two: But I would imagine it probably has, as I believe a number of mainstream clinics and hospitals in the UK now use acupuncture (mainly for rehab of outpatients and for pain relief, AFAIK). I spoke to a western quack about the whole alternative medicine thing years ago, and he essentially pooh-poohed it all, but did end by saying: "All that having been said - there is acupuncture..."

[I-mon]

Acupuncture has been shown to be effective in pain relief, but no more effective than sham acupuncture or placebo. The current scientific stance seems to be that it "works" through a combination of medical ritual (people like to be cared for by experts wearing the right clothes, in the right environment) and novel stimulation of the nervous system. I haven't been particularly impressed with any of the studies that I've read, neither the ones which support acupuncture nor those which do not support it. Most studies are too formulaic and do not take into account the perceptual skills of the practitioner or the precise diagnosis of the patient, or the various other factors used in traditional chinese medicine. Thus we're left with a conundrum: when "acupuncture" - the simple physical act of sticking needles into different bits of people - is separated from the total context of traditional Chinese medicine with diagnosis and pattern differentiation along with lifestyle and exercise and herbs and diet etc, it basically doesn't work (or, if you prefer, it does "work" but no better than fake acupuncture). But then if you try to study it within the greater context of Chinese medicine, there are far, far too many confounding variables present to isolate whatever effects might be coming from the insertion of needles into the skin.

Whatever's going on, my feeling these days is that there is a huge amount of imprecise, hit-and-miss, ineffective treatment going on under the title of "acupuncture", which might be better treated in other ways. Which other ways? That's another, even bigger conundrum!

[yeniseri]

The British Acupuncture Society site is a positive one regarding the capabilities of acupuncture within a holistic framework.
http://www.medical-acupuncture.co.uk/De ... x?tabid=40

WHO has done a report on the usefullness of acupuncture but it is only the US medical establishment that sees it as a threat. Things have improved somewhat but it is a long haul when you have those taking an oath to heal while charging you an arm and a leg and then cutting off the wrong appendage

[MiaoZhen]

Acupuncture has been shown to be effective in pain relief, but no more effective than sham acupuncture or placebo...

Whatever's going on, my feeling these days is that there is a huge amount of imprecise, hit-and-miss, ineffective treatment going on under the title of "acupuncture", which might be better treated in other ways. Which other ways? That's another, even bigger conundrum!

Again, actually not all research suggests that verum acupuncture is not any more effective than placebo/sham needling. For example see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24705624.

On your second statement I agree. Keep in mind that Chinese medicine does not advocate acupuncture alone as monotherapy. Even exercise therapy such as Taiji/Qigong falls under traditional treatment regimens. Too often in the west patients assume that acupuncture alone will solve all health issues, which is not the case. In my clinic half of the difficulty is trying to figure out what will actually be best for the individual patient - including getting them to move (i.e., taiji/qigong - only those two because that's what I practice and teach).

Henry

[yeniseri]

Acupuncture has been shown to be effective in pain relief, but no more effective than sham acupuncture or placebo. The current scientific stance seems to be that it "works" through a combination of medical ritual (people like to be cared for by experts wearing the right clothes, in the right environment) and novel stimulation of the nervous system. I haven't been particularly impressed with any of the studies that I've read, neither the ones which support acupuncture nor those which do not support it. Most studies are too formulaic and do not take into account the perceptual skills of the practitioner or the precise diagnosis of the patient, or the various other factors used in traditional chinese medicine. Thus we're left with a conundrum: when "acupuncture" - the simple physical act of sticking needles into different bits of people - is separated from the total context of traditional Chinese medicine with diagnosis and pattern differentiation along with lifestyle and exercise and herbs and diet etc, it basically doesn't work (or, if you prefer, it does "work" but no better than fake acupuncture). But then if you try to study it within the greater context of Chinese medicine, there are far, far too many confounding variables present to isolate whatever effects might be coming from the insertion of needles into the skin.

Whatever's going on, my feeling these days is that there is a huge amount of imprecise, hit-and-miss, ineffective treatment going on under the title of "acupuncture", which might be better treated in other ways. Which other ways? That's another, even bigger conundrum!

Excellent point! IF we take the template of "whitecoat hypertension" as an insight, then it would appear that the psychological component is major placebo tool in decreasing the majority of common conditions. We have the potential but the powers who want to be, will never change the present paradigm because it cuts into their profit agenda. If only enough people can multiply the individual effor then this can be beat in the long run. A hard fight nonetheless!

[D_Glenn]

Edited but reposted.

[Kevin_Wallbridge]

Whatever's going on, my feeling these days is that there is a huge amount of imprecise, hit-and-miss, ineffective treatment going on under the title of "acupuncture", which might be better treated in other ways. Which other ways? That's another, even bigger conundrum!

I think you can fairly replace "acupuncture" with "pharmacy" or just "medicine" and the statement would still be true.