Acupuncture Study

[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..