Skeptics on TCM

[PLCrane]

Originally posted by Former castleva

It has been shown various times,that whether you activate the certain point or not (a completely wrong point as an example) the results may not vary at all.


Do you know what they were using for outcome measurement? The opposite has been shown, too - that stimulation of acu-points results in changes seen on brain scan that don't occur with stimulation of non-points.

I'm not really familiar enough with all the research to carry on much of a conversation about it, but I see enough evidence not to discount the whole thing at this point. Um, I guess I also have some bias in that I already believe that acupunture works, based on personal experience. (note: believing that acupuncture works doesn't necessarily equate to believing that every concept in TCM is true or accurate.)

Here's a link to an abstract of Cho's study on stimulating vision related points in the leg and its effects on the visual cortex compared to shining a light in the eye. There's a link to the full text article, and if you click on Related Articles, you'll see abstracts from other studies, too.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entre...&dopt=Abstract


PLC

[Former castleva]

"Do you know what they were using for outcome measurement? The opposite has been shown, too - that stimulation of acu-points results in changes seen on brain scan that don't occur with stimulation of non-points. "
I´m unaware of the details.I mean that you can easily get the same chemicals/reaction going whether you "puncture" or stimulate in unrelated fashion (certain article(s) previously posted relate to this)
I´ve read about these changes,yet this is on shaky ground.
I think that is a better way to go,in order to sweep meridians right under the rug and look for something else.

"I'm not really familiar enough with all the research to carry on much of a conversation about it, but I see enough evidence not to discount the whole thing at this point. Um, I guess I also have some bias in that I already believe that acupunture works, based on personal experience. (note: believing that acupuncture works doesn't necessarily equate to believing that every concept in TCM is true or accurate.)"
Nature of the subject remains controversial.

"Here's a link to an abstract of Cho's study on stimulating vision related points in the leg and its effects on the visual cortex compared to shining a light in the eye. There's a link to the full text article, and if you click on Related Articles, you'll see abstracts from other studies, too."
It is possible that ancient´s might have literally "hit a nerve" (nothing really special)
Too bad they are not representing any relationship/connection within occipital lobes and this point.
You could pick virtually any point and state that it influences the brain,you could say it effects the thalamus (which would happen regardless) as an example.
Interesting regardless.

[PLCrane]

Originally posted by Former castleva

I think that is a better way to go,in order to sweep meridians right under the rug and look for something else.

Take a look at a book by Mark Seem, called Acupuncture Osteopathy: A New American Acupuncture. He looks at the relationship between acupuncture meridians and zones of the body (ventral, lateral and dorsal) and trigger point placement. He argues that acupuncture points and trigger points are really the same thing.

Japaneses acupuncturists work more along these lines than do Chinese acupuncturists, by using the classical point location as a general guideline and palpating to find the exact location and direction of push that elicits maximum tenderness in the area. This sometimes puts the point an inch or two away from the textbook location.


Too bad they are not representing any relationship/connection within occipital lobes and this point.

It sounds like you're expecting an anatomically based relationship. The ancient Chinese weren't big into anatomy, but they did pay attention to function. I would argue that they are seeing the relationship between the point on the leg and the function performed by the occipital lobes, even if they don't know where that function is being performed.

You could pick virtually any point and state that it influences the brain,you could say it effects the thalamus (which would happen regardless) as an example.
Interesting regardless.

They did more than that. They showed that stimulating point on the leg that's supposed to affect vision activated the same areas of the brain as shining a light in the eye.

If you want to look at what happens in the thalamus, then you should pick a point that's specific for some remote part of the body, and see if stimulating that point activates the same area of the thalamus as would stimulation of the body part itself.

Using Cho's methods, it might be worthwhile to map the brain activity associated with stimulation of each and every point, and maybe the effects of combined points, too. This could take awhile, but it might provide enough data to begin to sort out what's really happening.

[Former castleva]

"They did more than that. They showed that stimulating point on the leg that's supposed to affect vision activated the same areas of the brain as shining a light in the eye."

I know of a point or two which supposedly effect the eyes (very close to eyes they are) which seem to draw some blood into the area,I can easily understand this.

"If you want to look at what happens in the thalamus, then you should pick a point that's specific for some remote part of the body, and see if stimulating that point activates the same area of the thalamus as would stimulation of the body part itself.

Using Cho's methods, it might be worthwhile to map the brain activity associated with stimulation of each and every point, and maybe the effects of combined points, too. This could take awhile, but it might provide enough data to begin to sort out what's really happening."
I have seen data on a couple of points that seem to hold some water in light of science,not much else but it´s a worthy idea.

"It sounds like you're expecting an anatomically based relationship. The ancient Chinese weren't big into anatomy, but they did pay attention to function. I would argue that they are seeing the relationship between the point on the leg and the function performed by the occipital lobes, even if they don't know where that function is being performed."
Yes,I am.
If it is supposed to be a scientific method,I expect one to build a basis for such conclusion in such a manner.
Understanding of anatomy/physiology of ancient Chinese which does not seem to have evolved to this day is literally brainless in many respects.
Anyone with minimal understanding of those would be concerned (They cannot draw dramatic "qi"-science links if you know what I mean,when it comes to development )

"Take a look at a book by Mark Seem, called Acupuncture Osteopathy: A New American Acupuncture. He looks at the relationship between acupuncture meridians and zones of the body (ventral, lateral and dorsal) and trigger point placement. He argues that acupuncture points and trigger points are really the same thing. "
I´m afraid I won´t see the book anytime soon but acupoints/"meridians" have taken plenty of space from various therapies (including certain "western" ones)
I would not be extremely surprised on some of this but I can´t say much more for now.

[cha kuen]

Former,

Talking to you about this stuff is pointless because we go in circles. Anywys, looking at TCM with a western view is pointless and will have no outcomes.