Qigong as Medicine

[Orion Paximus]

So, I for some reason this sub-forum is some kind of botched with threads appearing in one screen and not in another. But I'll be ****ed if my long ass response goes un-completed because of something with a thread disappearing.

So if that thread gets recovered, or uncovered, or discovered, or whatever, please merge this with that thread. In the meantime...

It's still here

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...ng-as-Medicine

you have to adjust your settings too see topics from "the beginning" instead of "this month" which is the default.

[mawali]

The same thing happens in allopathic oriented clinical research. Some statisticians (they do the actual analyses) become creative with the real data and make assumptions (unrelated to the actual analysis) and some do seem to get away with it.
A better way to get around this is to have another person do the re-analyses and see if they come up with the same results. Cochrane did a review of taijiquan studies and they showed their process as a tool for further study and information. One can google the information. If I find it,I will post

[SoCo KungFu]

The same thing happens in allopathic oriented clinical research. Some statisticians (they do the actual analyses) become creative with the real data and make assumptions (unrelated to the actual analysis) and some do seem to get away with it.
A better way to get around this is to have another person do the re-analyses and see if they come up with the same results. Cochrane did a review of taijiquan studies and they showed their process as a tool for further study and information. One can google the information. If I find it,I will post

What do you mean by, "they do the actual analyses?" I have a response, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. At any rate, all research makes assumptions. Some assumptions are based on previous experimentation, some assumptions are mathematical. But they are there. Its whether you can justify them that counts.

[mawali]

What do you mean by, "they do the actual analyses?" I have a response, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. At any rate, all research makes assumptions. Some assumptions are based on previous experimentation, some assumptions are mathematical. But they are there. Its whether you can justify them that counts.

In clinical research (big pharma) it is the statistician who does final analyses. Despite the often rigorous attention to detail, statistical 'sleight; of hand' sometimes allows for creative use of data, which allows for bad drugs to reach the market. It is obvious that all research makes assumptions but the extent of it (clinical and statistical significance) can and is obscured by the profit and unholy alliances that exist despite the Hippocratic oath or the objectivity of data. I recall in a recent study I participated in there were a bunch of people (small sample, that is???) who were experiencing some adverse events and it was significant as they were serious adverse events but I, the lowly Data Analyst was called out for not minding my own beezness. At that point, the statistician did take a look at my finding but according to his observations, these were not statistically significant ENOUGH. Fast forward to a few years later, the class of drugs that cause COX 2 inhibition were deemed dangerous and labelling information had to be updated to conform to new updated requirements. The bottom line seems to be that profit is the only motive (and that is not representative of the Hippocratic oath) while negating the safety of those who would otherwise benefit from it.

Qigong tends to get away with basic concepts and methodology (name of system is not mentioned, days to some effect to be shown, etc) or the beneficial results tends to be extrapolated to ALL Qigong, which is a serious mistake. There is no doubt that the "teacher effect" accounts for a benefit or just the social component of someone caring the indivudal in question. Actually much criteria is lacking in qigong research though a recent study with falungong (yes, of all methods out there) does show that qigong has the potential to change DNA expression but that extent was not conclusively shown but the findings are exemplary since the modern tools of research (HPLA and opther chromatograpic tools) were part of the modern scientific community.
You can check out the Cochrane review pertaining to taijiquan and qigong to see what I am implying! They do have pdf files for download and give a far more wider and systematic exposition of faults within complementary methods of health!

[SoCo KungFu]

In clinical research (big pharma) it is the statistician who does final analyses. Despite the often rigorous attention to detail, statistical 'sleight; of hand' sometimes allows for creative use of data, which allows for bad drugs to reach the market. It is obvious that all research makes assumptions but the extent of it (clinical and statistical significance) can and is obscured by the profit and unholy alliances that exist despite the Hippocratic oath or the objectivity of data. I recall in a recent study I participated in there were a bunch of people (small sample, that is???) who were experiencing some adverse events and it was significant as they were serious adverse events but I, the lowly Data Analyst was called out for not minding my own beezness. At that point, the statistician did take a look at my finding but according to his observations, these were not statistically significant ENOUGH. Fast forward to a few years later, the class of drugs that cause COX 2 inhibition were deemed dangerous and labelling information had to be updated to conform to new updated requirements. The bottom line seems to be that profit is the only motive (and that is not representative of the Hippocratic oath) while negating the safety of those who would otherwise benefit from it.

Qigong tends to get away with basic concepts and methodology (name of system is not mentioned, days to some effect to be shown, etc) or the beneficial results tends to be extrapolated to ALL Qigong, which is a serious mistake. There is no doubt that the "teacher effect" accounts for a benefit or just the social component of someone caring the indivudal in question. Actually much criteria is lacking in qigong research though a recent study with falungong (yes, of all methods out there) does show that qigong has the potential to change DNA expression but that extent was not conclusively shown but the findings are exemplary since the modern tools of research (HPLA and opther chromatograpic tools) were part of the modern scientific community.
You can check out the Cochrane review pertaining to taijiquan and qigong to see what I am implying! They do have pdf files for download and give a far more wider and systematic exposition of faults within complementary methods of health!

Statisticians don't do the analyses. They do the stats. There is far more to interpretation than simply running numbers. No one is saying you can't lie with stats. Although I'd say a great majority of what people call that "sleight of hand" is really people just not understanding statistical procedure. Do you know how many different forms of a t-test there are and that each one is robust in different ways? That's rhetorical, I'm assuming you do if you were/are a data analyst. But its outside of your specialty to determine if those numbers are meaningful.

Beyond the rest of your 1st paragraph, tu quoque. Arguing that pharmaceuticals are interested in profit doesn't excuse the shoddy research that is going on in alt med (which is every bit as much a profit seeking industry, mind you). As for the study you were part of, practical significance vs statistical significance. If your sample was too small, the statistician was right to say it wasn't significant enough. He/she was following the parameters of their tools. Its up to the clinicians to determine if that statistical significance is or isn't practically significant. Which goes back to my first statement, statisticians don't do the analyses. They do the stats. The researcher has to determine what that means in the context of biological function. And this doesn't end at the point of sale. Everyone down the line makes a decision based on what evidence is available, right down to the consumer (if they are intelligent enough).

There's a difference in a p-value of 0.05 (although we'd be hoping they would be using a bit more stringent of a mark, but just for sake of example) when looking at increased incidence of say, headache vs MI (since I'm assuming by your mention of COX 2 that you are talking about cardiac function and stroke risk). Neither of those examples in this case would be statistically significant, they're teetering either way. But that would be quite practically significant in case of MI. That's where the clinicians have to be involved, statisticians don't make that decision, its not their science.

As for qigong, you are jumping too far ahead. If the data being presented is legitimate, then it doesn't matter what qigong you are using. In fact, it doesn't matter that they are doing qigong at all. The only significant finding is that people will stick with qigong classes longer and attend more frequently than standard phys therapy, probably due to novelty. You know what that tells me? That it doesn't matter what they are doing, so long as they are doing something to be active and decrease stress. And I'm not even going to bother going into figuring out how someone can separate falun gong with epigenetic effects, which are not very well understood in humans.

[mawali]

Statisticians don't do the analyses. They do the stats. There is far more to interpretation than simply running numbers. No one is saying you can't lie with stats. Although I'd say a great majority of what people call that "sleight of hand" is really people just not understanding. Do you know how many different forms of a t-test there are and that each one is robust in different ways? That's rhetorical, I'm assuming you do if you were/are a data analyst. But its outside of your specialty to determine if those numbers are meaningful.

Beyond the rest of your 1st paragraph, tu quoque. Arguing that pharmaceuticals are interested in profit doesn't excuse the shoddy research that is going on in alt med (which is every bit as much a profit seeking industry, mind you). As for the study you were part of, practical significance vs statistical significance. If your sample was too small, the statistician was right to say it wasn't significant enough. He/she was following the parameters of their tools. Its up to the clinicians to determine if that statistical significance is or isn't practically significant. Which goes back to my first statement, statisticians don't do the analyses. They do the stats. The researcher has to determine what that means in the context of biological function. And this doesn't end at the point of sale. Everyone down the line makes a decision based on what evidence is available, right down to the consumer (if they are intelligent enough).

There's a difference in a p-value of 0.05 (although we'd be hoping they would be using a bit more stringent of a mark, but just for sake of example) when looking at increased incidence of say, headache vs MI (since I'm assuming by your mention of COX 2 that you are talking about cardiac function and stroke risk). Neither of those examples in this case would be statistically significant, they're teetering either way. But that would be quite practically significant in case of MI. That's where the clinicians have to be involved, statisticians don't make that decision, its not their science..

Q. What do I mean by "sleight of hand"
When I use the term, I am aware that there are some in clinical statistics groups get away with substituting certain tests when other statistical test are far fore important in determining efficacy, significance or both. Clinical significance vs statistical significance is under the purview of the statistician but it is a joint effort when adverse events categorization (frequency and severity) since the MD sponsor has to be the main point of selling the good numbers to the development team. The consumer can only rely on what is told to him (truth in advertising) through this process. As you ar aware, recent trials found to be misleading involved a concerted attempt (on the part of the pharmaceutical company) to prevent the consumer from accessing or evwn being aware of malfeasance. In my local area, there is even a site or a group of lawyers capitalizing on this; sound familiar 1.800 BAD-DRUG. Statisticians provide the background on which clinicians are supposed to shpw a coprresponding beneficial effect!, generally as it is rare to find an MD, who has a statistical background. They do exist, though.

Per COX-2, the primary indication was relief of pain but as you know when you have the adverse events exceeding the beneficial effects of a specific compound, then you have a problem. As I noted, there is nothing wrong with profits but when you deceive and hide elements of drug labeling thinking no one will find out, then that is always bad. Isn't the goal of ethical conduct more important than deceit, which appears to sell if you can confuse stuff.

In Alt. Med, things are worse because there is less of a scientific knowledge based and most tend to say their system of Chee Gung is the BEst in the Universe, while lacking the tools in explaining why and under what conditions. I reference Falun Gong because of its "Evil Association" whereby despite one's feeling about it, the scientific process as explained can be duplicated (the knowledge base) thougj it would be expensive based on the equipment used. Obviously, more simpler strategies and monitoring equipment can make qigong and taijiquan more adaptable under all conditions.

[GeneChing]

This is obvious really. I'm ttt-ing it because our qigong forum needs a little luv.

Bee Healthy: Qi Gong shown to benefit COPD patients
BY JESSICA JACKSON
July 14, 2014

According to the National Qi Gong Association, Qi Gong is an ancient Chinese health care system that reestablishes the body/mind/soul connection. It has numerous health benefits and is practiced for spiritual enhancement, medical purposes, and even self-defense.

Qi (pronounced chee) is the Chinese word for energy or life force. Gong (pronounced gung) means skill obtained through constant practice. Qi Gong is essentially the practice of cultivating life energy through breathing techniques, postures, mental focus and movement.

There are many styles of Qi Gong and when practiced regularly the body’s stress levels decrease, endurance and energy increase and the immune system is enhanced. It also can improve functions of major organs, like the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys. Several scientific studies have shown Qi Gong’s particular impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

One study by Chun, Lee, Suen and Tam found that Qi Gong improves lung function and actually slows the progression of COPD. Participants in this study engaged in 60-minute Qi Gong sessions twice a week for several months. They were taught various breathing techniques and slow, gentle movements and after six months demonstrated a marked improvement in lung function, endurance and activity levels.

A different study by Leung, Alison, McKeough and Petus boasted similar findings. They found that participants in their study developed increased exercise capacity, improved balance and muscle strength, and enhanced quality of life.

Qi Gong is an effective, inexpensive, highly accessible and adaptable form of physical, mental and spiritual exercise. No special equipment is needed, so it can be practiced anywhere.

People of all fitness and skill levels can participate and benefit from practicing this art. It is especially beneficial for those who have chronic lung disease. It relieves anxiety/stress, increases energy levels, helps slow the progression of COPD and improves overall quality of life. There are a number of Qi Gong instructional books and DVDs available for purchase at bookstores and on the Internet. Many health and wellness centers offer classes, as well.

[SoCo KungFu]

The bottom line seems to be that profit is the only motive (and that is not representative of the Hippocratic oath) while negating the safety of those who would otherwise benefit from it.

I'm addressing this separately because its off topic. This fear mongering is getting out of hand. Are profits important? Yeah of course. Look this is capitalism. But these notions of evil alliances and conspiracies are getting ridiculous. Nothing is covert, corporations seek profit. But that doesn't mean everyone checks their ethics at the door. Most people are like you and I. They just want to do a good job and create something to help people. People don't spend a decade learning pharmaceuticals so they can make bank, there's no bank to be made for the researcher. Most are struggling with job security while trying to maintain their ethical integrity. Many are there because they had some personal motivator to drive them that far. Say what you want about corporations, but the people within that corporation are far more important to what goes on than some simple notion of profit margin. And its only slightly hypocritical when the alt med industry is stoking up these flames because this paranoia is what feeds their profit margin.

[Syn7]

The individuals ethics may not be checked at the door, but when you look at the whole spectrum of the corporate world, you do see a detachment of sorts. They trend. And people who live in certain bubbles lose sight of the greater impact of their social and economic policies. That isn't just pharma, that goes for all of these massive entities. They aren't all the same, but if we laid it out bare, it wouldn't be equal to something like a smaller tight knit group who goes out of their way to help people while still making profit. The further removed from the consequences, the less likely they are to deal with the negative impacts. A lot of these people with actual power are just carpet baggers, for sure, but many are just small cogs in a giant machine. They don't feel as if their morality is relevant in the larger context. And to a large extent, they're right. It can be quite apathetic.

[GeneChing]

Hypertension Treated With Qigong
Added by Nick Ng on March 30, 2014.



Hypertension can be treated with an ancient Chinese meditative exercise called qigong (pronounced “chi-gong” without the lips puckered up in “chi), which involves a series of slow and repetitive movements and breathing awareness. This bodes good news for those who cannot physically withstand regular exercise, such as walking or running, because of joint, muscle, or neural problems. According to the National Qigong Association in St. Paul, Minnesota, qigong — meaning “breath work” literally — involves specific breathing techniques, mental focus, and moving or stationary posture. It is an umbrella term for other styles of Chinese martial arts, such as tai chi and vigorous styles of kung fu. Thus, anyone practicing these subcategories of martial arts can be considered as qigong practitioners. Although it is not a cure-all for diseases and disorders, qigong complements existing Western and Chinese medicine practices to improve cardiovascular, respiratory, and mental functions and to reduce hypertension-related symptoms, such as anxiety and stress.

A recent Chinese study showed the benefits of tai chi in reducing anxiety that can raise blood pressure was published in the March 2014 issue of International Journal of Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Pharmacology. Thirty-two elderly patients who were suffering from anxiety disorder were randomly placed into an experimental group that received tai chi exercise with drug therapy and a control group that only had drug therapy. After 45 days of treatment, the cured patients stopped the drug therapy yet those who were in the experimental group continued to do tai chi. Two months later, researchers evaluated both groups to determine if the disease came back. What they discovered was somewhat surprising.

The control group had a near-43 percent recurrence rate while the experimental group had a recurrence rate of slightly over nine percent. Although a larger sample population may be needed to confirm this finding, tai chi — and maybe — classical qigong could treat anxiety and decrease hypertension levels with some drug therapy. However, the study did not measure blood pressure. Had it done so, the data could be compared with other past studies that used blood pressure readings to make better conclusions about the effects of qigong exercises and hypertension.

On a larger scale, however, the results may be a little different from the Chinese study. A meta-analysis of nine studies of qigong and hypertension from Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine in China showed that the average decrease in systolic blood pressure in those who practiced qigong was 17.03 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) lower than the control group that did not receive any hypertensive interventions. However, the reduction rate wasn’t better than those in drug controls or conventional exercise controls. Likewise, the average diastolic blood pressure decrease was almost 10 mm Hg, which was better than the control group but not so much compared to the drug and conventional exercise groups. Overall, the researchers concluded that practicing qigong for less than one year is better in decreasing blood pressure than with no practice at all.

Physicians and other Western medical professionals may eventually be more likely to recommend their patients to practice qigong to treat hypertension and related illnesses. Given the rising popularity and awareness of its benefits, qigong may be more prevalent in mainstream health care systems across the United States. Qigong requires just the body and no equipment, and it can be done anywhere in a group setting or privately at home. Those who have been practicing qigong for a year or more may say to themselves, “I know kung fu.”

By Nick Ng

My qigong has done nothing to lower my blood pressure. Nothing at all.