Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

[salvorhardin]

By definition, “alternative” medicine consists of treatments that have not been scientifically proven and that have not been accepted into mainstream medicine. The question I keep hearing is, “But what about acupuncture? It’s been proven to work, it’s supported by lots of good research, more and more doctors are using it, and insurance companies even pay for it.” It’s time the acupuncture myth was punctured — preferably with an acupuncture needle. Almost everything you’ve heard about acupuncture is wrong.

To start with, this ancient Chinese treatment is not so ancient and may not even be Chinese! From studying the earliest documents, Chinese scholar Paul Unschuld suspects the idea may have originated with the Greek Hippocrates of Cos and later spread to China. It’s definitely not 3000 years old. The earliest Chinese medical texts, from the 3rd century BCE, do not mention it. The earliest reference to “needling” is from 90 BCE, but it refers to bloodletting and lancing abscesses with large needles or lancets. There is nothing in those documents to suggest anything like today’s acupuncture. We have the archaeological evidence of needles from that era — they are large; the technology for manufacturing thin steel needles appropriate for acupuncture didn’t exist until about 400 years ago. ...

Through the early 20th century, no Western account of acupuncture referred to acupuncture points: needles were simply inserted near the point of pain. Qi was originally vapor arising from food, and meridians were channels or vessels. ...

Studies have shown that acupuncture releases natural opioid pain relievers in the brain: endorphins. Veterinarians have pointed out that loading a horse into a trailer or throwing a stick for a dog also releases endorphins. Probably hitting yourself on the thumb with a hammer would release endorphins too, and it would take your mind off your headache. ...

Guess what? It doesn’t matter where you put the needle. It doesn’t matter whether you use a needle at all. In the best controlled studies, only one thing mattered: whether the patients believed they were getting acupuncture.
Much, much more: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-10-08.html#feature

[amitten]

1. Go have it done, then be the judge.

I had it done for a sinus infection and it opened up my sinuse within minutes.

Placebo? No. But if it was, would it matter? Still works!

[Celebration]

36. Amen

Kept my daughter after multiple rounds of antibiotics that nearly destroyed her health.

[cliffordu]

2. Don't be hatin'

:rofl:

[The Traveler]

3. I have no way of evaluating the history

but having taken the treatments and witnessed others, I have little basis for doubting the results.

And hitting your thumb with a hammer does little to relieve your headache ... it just hurts the thumb. Take it from a shade tree mechanic with lots of experience in those matters ... :rofl:

[salvorhardin]

15. Hitting your thumb with a hammer will cause the release endorphins

It'll hurt like hell but it will cause the release of endorphins. This is one of the reasons why a small percentage of people practice "cutting"; because it causes the release of endorphins which help make them feel better (the other major reason is because it gives them a feeling of control).

Likewise, acupuncture does work for some people. However, it doesn't seem to be anything other than a placebo. There's just no proper scientific studies that show it works. On the other hand, as the author noted, it's almost impossible to study acupuncture scientifically because it's so difficult to construct a double-blinded framework to study it within.

What's interesting about this article is that it purports that acupuncture, as practiced today, is largely an invention of Westerners in the 20th Century. I do wish she had cited sources though.

[amitten]

33. I doubt that acupuntcture releases endorphins in most cases.

You can't even feel it ususally, because the needles barely even prick your skin.

There is NO pain registered by the needle insertion. All one feels is a very light tapping sensation. Thus, it it most certainly is not releasing pain-response endorphins like cutting or your hammer analogy.

But people who haven't had it done don't know this. So, they are too uninformed to draw any conclusions.

[salvorhardin]

42. Actually, acupuncture does cause the release of endorphins

In 1999, clinical researchers reported that inserting acupuncture needles into specific body points triggers the production of endorphins.<16><17> In another study, higher levels of endorphins were found in cerebrospinal fluid after patients underwent acupuncture.<18> In addition, naloxone appeared to block acupuncture’s pain-relieving effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphin#Acupuncture

It should be noted that Nalaxone is an opioid receptor antagonist (which means it blocks the effects of opioids). Endorphins are opioids. So if Nalaxone block's acupuncture's pain-relieving effects that's a good indication of endorphins being released in conjunction with acupuncture. Whether or not endorphins are the primary cause of any reported effects of acupuncture is debatable. Again, it's almost impossible to designed double-blind trials to study acupuncture.

I have to repeat myself once again. No one is debating whether acupuncture has an effect for some people. It does. It might be a placebo effect, but who cares if it works for you? Even the article I quoted from and linked to in the OP doesn't make this claim. There's just no evidence for acupuncture's effects being anything beyond placebo. Again, quoting from the article:

Considering the inconsistent research results, the implausibility of qi and meridians, and the many questions that remain, it’s reasonable to conclude that acupuncture is nothing more than a recipe for an elaborate placebo seasoned with a soupçon of counter-irritant. You can play human pincushion if you want, and you might get a good placebo response, but there’s no evidence you’ll get anything more.

[amitten]

51. So you're saying endorphins are a placebo?

Either endorphins are causing pain relief, or a placebo effect is happening. It can't be both simultaneously, because an endorphin is an actual chemical compound and not an imagined effect.

Placebo = imagined.

So if patients are having pain relief due to endorphins released by acupuncture, that is not a placebo effect.

Furthermore, if acupuncture is actually releasing endorphins in the ABSENCE of induced pain (as in my case--the needles caused me no perceivable pain) then perhaps something important is indeed at work.

[salvorhardin]

54. Oh come on now

Of course endorphins aren't a placebo. They have however been implicated in the placebo effect. How the placebo effect works is still largely unknown but thanks to modern neuroscience we do have some clues. The fact that endorphins are involved indicates that the dopamine reward system is in play and recent fMRI studies indicate that the placebo effect alters the experience of pain. Just the fact that a patient pays for a treatment may induce a placebo effect. It's far more complicated than the patient just imagining that they're getting better.

Placebo-Induced Changes in fMRI in the Anticipation and Experience of Pain
Tor D. Wager,1*{dagger} James K. Rilling,2 Edward E. Smith,1 Alex Sokolik,3 Kenneth L. Casey,3 Richard J. Davidson,4 Stephen M. Kosslyn,5 Robert M. Rose,6 Jonathan D. Cohen2,7

The experience of pain arises from both physiological and psychological factors, including one's beliefs and expectations. Thus, placebo treatments that have no intrinsic pharmacological effects may produce analgesia by altering expectations. However, controversy exists regarding whether placebos alter sensory pain transmission, pain affect, or simply produce compliance with the suggestions of investigators. In two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments, we found that placebo analgesia was related to decreased brain activity in pain-sensitive brain regions, including the thalamus, insula, and anterior cingulate cortex, and was associated with increased activity during anticipation of pain in the prefrontal cortex, providing evidence that placebos alter the experience of pain.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/303/5661/1162

In a series of experiments, Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely (2005) show that the price consumers pay for a beverage not only affects the perceived benefit from the product but also extends to actual performance on puzzle-solving tasks. Placebo effects that manifest as changes in subjective state (e.g., mood, aesthetic ratings) are one thing, but when the effect extends to behavior, the placebo passes out of the realm of being “all in the head” and into something real and measurable. An examination of Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely’s experiments sheds some light on the nature of these changes but also raises a host of questions about the very nature of the placebo effect and where it comes from.

The idea behind Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely’s experiment is simple: The more a person pays for a beverage advertised to increase mental acuity, the bigger the performance-enhancing effect should be. However, paying more for the beverage did not improve mental performance so much as paying discounted prices impaired performance. Such a result suggests that the product marketing can establish a placebo effect in terms of its efficacy that precedes the price effect. Indeed, when participants’ attention was deliberately drawn to the price, the price effect was weakened, suggesting that by whatever mechanism the price effect operates, it is probably nonconscious. The only way that performance was actually enhanced beyond baseline was by drawing attention to the marketing claims surrounding the product. Only in this circumstance did paying more for the product enhance performance. ...

When an animal (or a person) encounters something new and valuable for the first time, dopamine is released into the striatum. When the valuable item is consistently preceded by an otherwise neutral cue, dopamine ceases to be released in response to the item and, instead, is released in response to the cue. This process is essentially the same as Pavlovian conditioning but at the biochemical level. Dopamine simply signals the earliest event (which, by definition, must be unpredictable by anything preceding it) that predicts a salient outcome. It is highly likely that money and, by extension, price are such cues. Through repeated exposure, higher-priced items tend to be associated with better quality goods and services and, therefore, are expected to deliver more utility to a consumer. In Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely’s experiments, reduced price apparently works in the opposite direction, perhaps signaling decreased utility from the beverage. This suggests a fascinating brain imaging experiment. Striatal activity should track the price that people pay for the beverage, being lower than baseline in the reduced-price condition, at baseline in the full-price condition, and above baseline in the above-price condition. Indeed, similar studies could be performed on the price-performance effects of analgesics and the relationship between price paid and activity in pain regions of the brain. If Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely’s results were extended to such a realm, this
would imply that discount drug policies may actually impair the efficacy of certain medications.
http://www.ccnl.emory.edu/greg/jmkr.42.4.399.pdf

The placebo treatments in neurosciences
New insights from clinical and neuroimaging studies
Nico J. Diederich, MD and Christopher G. Goetz, MD, FAAN

From the Department of Neurosciences (N.J.D.), Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, Luxembourg City; and Department of Neurological Sciences (N.J.D., C.G.G.), Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Nico J. Diederich, Department of Neurosciences, Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg, 4, rue Barblé, L-1210 Luxembourg City, Luxembourg [e-mail]

Placebo (PL) treatment is a method utilized as a control condition in clinical trials. A positive placebo response is seen in up to 50% of patients with Parkinson disease (PD), pain syndromes, and depression. The response is more pronounced with invasive procedures or advanced disease. Physiologic and biochemical changes have been studied in an effort to understand the mechanisms underlying placebo-related clinical improvement. In PD, objective clinical improvements in parkinsonism correlate with dopaminergic activation of the striatum, documented by PET and with changes in cell firings of the subthalamic nucleus documented by single cell recordings. Dopaminergic pathways mediating reward may underlie PL-mediated improvement in PD. In pain syndromes, endogenous opioid release triggered by cortical activation, especially the rostral anterior cingulated cortex, is associated with PL-related analgesia and can be reversed by opioid antagonists. Covert treatment of an analgesic is less effective than overt treatment, suggesting an expectation component to clinical response. In depression, PL partially imitates selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor–mediated brain activation. Diseases lacking major "top-down" or cortically based regulation may be less prone to PL-related improvement.
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/9/677

[amitten]

56. Well, I still maintain that acupuncture is nothing like cutting

in the way of pain relief.

If I have a headache, and I accidentally stub my toe, my endorphins may temporarily relieve the pain of both. But in no time, my toe hurts and I STILL have my headache.

But with acupuncture, pain relief lasts days or is sometimes permanent. I don't think temporary endorphin release can accomplish that.

Furthermore, acupuncture has helped many with conditions unrelated to any kind of pain (infertility for example). Again, I don't think endorphins get the credit. Otherwise, I could just eat some chocolate in lieu of taking an Advil, since chocolate releases endorphins.

No, I'm quite certain something not yet understood is going on here.

If you ever seek acupuncture for treatment of an illness, you will better understand where I'm coming from. It's hard to empathize with something you've never experienced--one of the sad truths of human nature.

[salvorhardin]

65. That's a valid point

Endorphins don't fully explain the effects of acupuncture or placebo. They're just an intriguing place to start and by pursuing that line of inquiry there has been some light shown on the placebo effect.

As someone who lives with chronic pain, I would never try to disuade anyone from trying acupuncture, especially for the relief of pain. It might work. However believing that the folk explanation of acupuncture (manipulating Qi) is an accurate explanation of the effects of acupuncture is counter to science (especially when the folk explanation is largely a manufactured 20th C. myth). The science is clear that although acupuncture may help some people, in the aggregate it is no better than placebo. That's an important distinction. We have no proof to say to someone that acupuncture will help them. Not in the same way we can say to someone who has a headache that aspirin has a very good chance of helping them. We can only say, "Give it a try. It probably won't hurt."

[amitten]

87. Chinese medicine is not a myth. It is indeed ancient.

Mayo Clinic (where my dad used to work) is unbelievably scrupulous about fact-checking before they publish anything on a given subject, and they themselves maintain acupuncture is thousands of years old:

http://www.webmd.com/fibromyalgia/news/20050824/study-acupuncture-helps-fibromyalgia

Has the Mayo Clinic been duped by 1950's Chinese propaganda? I think not.

I mean no offense at all, but you are honestly not properly informed on the subject matter. If you do somewhat more extensive research, you will find that Traditional Chinese Medicine is exactly that, and in fact dates back thousands of years. There are several ancient tomes full of proof, that have been published in different languages all over the world. They are no more "fake" than the Bible or the Koran, though you have every right to question the facts they contain (as with any historical accounting).

But to maintain that this well-documented ancient medical approach is somehow a modern fabrication, is, well, ignorant of the facts (again, no offense--you have just not done your homework yet).

[Orrex]

89. That article does not say "thousands of years old"

Here's what it says:

Acupuncture has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for centuries. It involves inserting needles in strategic parts of the body to improve the flow of what practitioners call chi, or vital energy said to travel through the body on energy pathways called meridians. (emphasis and colored font are mine)

I likewise mean no offense at all, but if you're going to make a claim (e.g., that the Mayo Clinic maintains that acupuncture is thousands of years old) and you're going to cite an article apparently in support of that claim, then it would be helpful if the cited article actually supported the claim.

If I'm simply not seeing the relevant text from the article, or if you accidentally linked to an incorrect article, then please feel free to post a correction.

Incidentally, the results as described in that article are consistent with the placebo effect, especially this part:

The biggest improvements were seen in pain, anxiety, and fatigue. "However, activity and physical function levels did not change," write David Martin, MD, PhD, and colleagues. (emphasis and colored font are mine)

In other words, the subjective symptoms of fibromyalgia showed improvement, but the empirically measureable symptoms did not. I'm delighted that the test subjects enjoyed any level of relief, but this study and article are hardly as conclusive as proponents might wish them to be.

Additionally, no one in this thread has disputed that Traditional Chinese Medicine (by whatever designation) has existed for thousands of years; so has western medicine, while we're at it. The dispute is that acupuncture as currently practiced has not been practiced for millennia.

[HamdenRice]

93. You are changing the goal posts, so to speak

This entire thread was started, not surprisingly, by an OP. That OP quotes an article that makes several claims.

The point most of us are trying to get across (against resistance, the cause of which is quite puzzling) is that almost everything in the article cited in the OP is wrong. No one is claiming that acupuncture hasn't changed in 2000 years. That's a straw man.

But the article in the OP makes some quite preposterous, easily falsifiable claims. Qi is not just "vapor arising from food" nor was that the nature of the concept until recently.

"Almost everything you’ve heard about acupuncture is wrong" is actually not correct, if what is "right" is what the OP claims is factual.

The idea that acupuncture "may not even be Chinese" is absurd; there are ancient Chinese texts, linked to in this thread, showing precisely how acupuncture developed as part of Chinese medical culture, and how it fit into the Chinese world view. In fact, the foundational documents of Chinese medical culture, wherein Chinese thinking was revolutionized from an animist, magic based medicine to observation and experimentation, and cause and effect, from BCE, discussed both acupuncture and qi. The idea that it came from the Greeks is beyond ludicrous -- it's utterly laughable considering the documentary evidence, not to mention vaguely racists and condescending.

The OP says, "There is nothing in those documents to suggest anything like today’s acupuncture" which is demonstrably false and goes against all the expert opinion that has been shown in this thread.

The article cited in the OP makes the preposterous mistake of suggesting that because she was unable to find documents in western languages mentioning acupuncture before 1939, it did not exist -- which really goes to her sloppy research skills, because it has been mentioned in western texts going back to the 1500s.

Why on earth are the so-called skeptics so gullible when it comes to defending the intellectually sloppy, preposterous, demonstrably false claims in the OP? Is this like a team sport such that as soon as someone calls himself or herself a "skeptic" all other self described skeptics have to defend his or her claims no matter how ridiculous?

[Orrex]

94. What the OP said is irrelevant, for the moment

At issue are the claims that amitten made and then failed to support with the web page that she cited, apparently intended to support her claims.

And it's not a straw man at all, though given your fondness for them I can understand your eagerness to see them everywhere. In fact, amitten claimed that the Mayo Clinic agreed that acupuncture was thousands of years old; I merely asked her to support her claim, because the cited article did not support it.

[HamdenRice]

96. Ever heard of "judicial notice"?

Theoretically, a judge in a trial is supposed to only consider evidence presented at trial. But when a fact is utterly obvious, the judge can say, he takes judicial notice of that fact -- for example, that C follows B in the alphabet.

What difference does it make that amitten does not point to a specific web page that says "acupuncture was thousands of years old"? Can't you take "judicial notice" of a fact that no one with any expertise -- expertise to which you have been referred over and over and over in this thread -- disputes?

Asking for proof that acupuncture is thousands of years old is like asking for proof that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

And I'm truly and honestly puzzled about why you are clinging to claims in the OP article which consists almost completely of historical and linguistic errors and bogus statements of non-fact?

[Orrex]

100. Ever hear of 'begging the question?'

Asking for proof that acupuncture is thousands of years old is like asking for proof that George Washington was the first president of the United States.

That's argument by assertion. You're asking me to accept outright what is in fact at issue: namely, the claim that acupuncture as such has existed for thousands of years.

Amitten made a claim and posted a link to a page explicitly to support that claim. Her claim was that the Mayo Clinic agrees that acupuncture is thousands of years old, and the page was offered as proof of that claim. However, the page did not support that claim, so I asked her what her source was.

Do you understand?

For purposes of my interaction with amitten (into which, by the way, you have seen fit to insert yourself), the point is not whether acupuncture is thousands of years old. The point is whether or not the Mayo Clinic agrees that acupuncture is thousands of years old. If the Clinic does, then fine: show me their statement to that effect. If the Clinic does not, or if the claim can't be substantiated (as it currently is not), then the claim must be withdrawn.

At stake is an attempt to give legitimacy to an as yet unsubstantiated claim. If we simply accept without corrobation the assertion that the Mayo Clinic agrees that acupuncture is thousands of years old, then we endorse a claim that would greatly benefit your side of the argument. Therefore it is appropriate to demand corroboration of such a claim, especially when the original citation did not corroborate it.

[HamdenRice]

105. Have you read through this thread?

"That's argument by assertion." -- No it's argument by referring you to legitimate sources.

There are lots of citations with links in this thread that show that acupuncture is thousands of years old. These sources were provided in post 16 among other places.

Why is it that you seem so wedded to the counter-factual, easily disprovable claim that acupuncture is a recent invention? And what is it about the epistemology of self proclaimed skeptics that makes their assertions impervious to evidence?

[Orrex]

107. Your sources don't prove what you think they do

So far your posts have universally consisted of three things: straw men arguments, ad hominem attacks, and begging the question. You should really work on that.


Anyway, I've stated elsewhere--as have others--that it is not sufficent to point to a vague reference in an ancient volume. Show us explicitly that acupuncture as practiced today was practiced 3,000 years ago.

Have you done this? No.

Was it done in post 16? No.

Was it done anywhere in the thread? No.

The arguable claim that acupuncture can be traced to 3,000 year-old techniques is not sufficient, because that's not what acupuncture's acolytes are claiming; they're claiming that acupuncture has been practiced for 3,000 years.

You seem to lack the ability to distinguish between a technique and its origins. Or, if you don't lack that ability, you certainly haven't shown that you possess it.


Beyond all of that, the dubious age of the modern technique isn't even central, except as a means of critiquing the OP's cited article. Instead, the efficacy of the technique is at issue, because its age (real or imagined) is irrelevant to whether or not it works.

[HamdenRice]

108. "except as a means of critiquing the OP's cited article"

Well, that's my point. The OP article is wrong on every assertion. I have never used acupuncture and can't personally vouch for its effectiveness. I have no dog in that fight.

My main point is the the article in the OP is pure crackpottery, that virtually every assertion in the OP article is wrong, and that it is easy to prove it is wrong, and am puzzled why self proclaimed "skeptics" cling to the validity of an article that is disprovable with the click of a mouse.

As for the cites in post 16, they prove that expert consensus is that acupuncture is several thousand years old (not 3,000 -- strawman alert), having been described in texts that date to the early BCE. These sources show that acupuncture may not be exactly the same as practiced now, but certainly was not merely the lancing of boils which is the position taken by the resident "skeptics" based on the crackpot article in the OP.

And of course, as you well know, my arguments are not limited to strawman, ad hom or begging the question. I thought you were a cut above certain other self described skeptics in logic and reasoning ability, but apparently not.

I have provided links to articles that support my position, which is not that the ancientness of acupuncture proves its validity, but simply that the article in the OP is wrong on the most basic historical and linguistic points, and that if it gets the most basic history and linguistics completely wrong, therefore, its overall conclusions about effectiveness are not to be accepted on authorial authority by rational individuals.

So to simplify: the question is not whether acupuncture is ancient (2000 years old or 3000 years old) or whether that ancientness makes is valid.

The point is whether the claim in the article in the OP -- that acupuncture is a twentieth century invention -- is true.

It isn't.

QED

[Orrex]

113. How many is "several" thousand?

More than one, I'd guess. Two thousand? Three-and-a-half thousand?

I'm pretty sure that I read here or in one of the linked articles give the figure of 3,000 years; if I am incorrect in this, then I withdraw that specific claim and happily substitute "several thousand" in place of "three thousand." It doesn't change anything about anything else I've said, though.

The point is whether the claim in the article in the OP -- that acupuncture is a twentieth century invention -- is true.

No, the claim is that acupuncture as currently (sold and) practiced is a 20th century invention. You have not disproven this claim.

[HamdenRice]

126. So, you think that 2000 and 3000 are the same?

Basic arithmetic is a prerequisite to a sophisticated discussion of both science and history. If you think that a millennium is a trivial amount of time in history, you would tend to place the Norman Conquest of England around the time of the birth of Jesus, and the discovery of the Americas as about the same time as the fall of Rome.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Your statement reminds of the line attributed to Senator Everett Dirksen about the federal budget: "a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."

So the corollary would be a thousand years, here, and thousand years there, and pretty soon you're talking about real historical change.

FYI, the Nei Jing, one of the foundational document of Chinese medicine, has been dated to around the first century BCE.

[Orrex]

130. Ad hominem again

Your ad hominem attacks wouldn't be quite so preposterous if you actually posted arguments along with them.


Nah. On second thought, they'd still be every bit as preposterous.

[HamdenRice]

135. "acupuncture as currently (sold and) practiced is a 20th century invention."

Actually you are making the affirmative claim that needs to be proven. The only support for this claim is in the article cited in the OP. But that article is full of demonstrable errors.

Can you provide any evidence outside the article in the OP that "acupuncture as currently (sold and) practiced is a 20th century invention"?

[Orrex]

138. You're kidding, right?

You've been asked repeatedly to provide a citation from an ancient source that demonstrates that acupuncture as currently practiced has been around for thousands of years. You have refused to provide this citation, instead claiming that it's already been provided many times over, when it has not.

And then you make a demand for evidence? No problem.

Once you provide yours.

[HamdenRice]

140. See post 16

Your simply refusing to read or acknowledge the information in the cites linked in my post 16 is not the equivalent of my not providing evidence.

Rather than just say those cites don't prove my claim, could you elaborate on why you don't think they prove my claim? Can you explain why those four cites fail to support the claim that acupuncture is more than 100 years old (ie is not a 20th century invention)?

[Orrex]

143. Trostky and salvorhardin already dismantled your claims there

[HamdenRice]

145. Where?

All they've said is that (in their opinions) the cites don't support the claim, but not one of you has explained why. No one has quoted any part of any of those texts to explain why they don't support my claim.

To avoid getting into a sub-argument about trotsky and SH, pretend I can't find trotsky's or SH's post.

In a few words, can you explain why those cites do not show that acupuncture is over 100 years old?

It seems to me that if a text shows (with sources and citations), that in the mid 1700s there was a debate between acupuncturists in China about whether the acupuncture methods of the Song Dynasty (960–1127) or Han Dynasty (202 BC–220 AD) are best, that's proof that acupuncture is not a 20th century invention.

[Orrex]

148. Which method (Song or Han) is practiced today as it was in 1700 or earlier?

It seems to me that if a text shows (with sources and citations), that in the mid 1700s there was a debate between acupuncturists in China about whether the acupuncture methods of the Song Dynasty (960–1127) or Han Dynasty (202 BC–220 AD) are best, that's proof that acupuncture is not a 20th century invention.

Did they, in the 1700s, practice acupuncture as it is practiced today? Since that is the central claim, you need to document it.

Western medicine practiced amputations and surgery in the 1700's but you wouldn't call them "amputations and surgery as practiced today."

Acupuncture as it is practiced today has not been practiced that way since its inception or even since the 1700s.

I'm faced with an odd choice, here. I can continue to reply to your posts, refuting your arguments (such as they are) when they occasionally pop up between personal attacks and non sequiturs, but I know that your next reply will just be a repetition of what you've said before.


If you'll forgive me for employing what must be the most vile insult imaginable, you're arguing like a Libertarian. That is, you repeat your argument again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again until your opponent says "fuck this, I'm out of here," and then you claim victory.

[HamdenRice]

152. Your words: "acupuncture as currently (sold and) practiced is a 20th century invention."

That's really the issue. You are agreeing with the OP article, which is simply wrong. I don't think anyone would argue that acupuncture hasn't changed at all. But that doesn't mean it's a 20th century invention. The OP article is full of bizarre, contradictory arguments, such as that acupuncture was invented in the 20th century, and can't be thousands of years old; but also that it is a recent invention because the acupuncture needles have been around only 400 years.

So which is it? A twentieth century invention or a 17th century invention? It can't have been invented in the 20th century, but also have been around in the 17th century, now, can it?

I've offered plenty of sources showing both debates from the mid 18th century and foundational documents from earlier periods. Can you please provide at least one source, other than the OP (which has been discredited, and at any rate is at issue), for the idea that "acupuncture as currently (sold and) practiced is a 20th century invention"? Because all the credible academic sources say otherwise.

Upthread, the criteria for what acupuncture is has generally been the use of needles to manipulate qi for health and healing. This is clearly documented in sources I cite that discuss 18th century writings, which in turn, were debating Song and Han Dynasty techniques, all of which involved the use of needles to manipulate qi to achieve health.

The so called skeptics have argued that all those older sources are about lancing boils and bloodletting, and have specifically argued that the older texts are not about the use of needles to manipulate qi, yet none have offered any refutation of the documentary proof.

Hence, the OP article remains a piece of silly crackpottery, and none of its conclusions should be taken seriously by any intellectually rigorous person.

[HamdenRice]

147. What's that sound?!?!?

***chirp*** ... ***chirp*** ... ***chirp***

Crickets!!!

[HamdenRice]

97. "the folk explanation is largely a manufactured 20th C. myth"

Why is it essential to your argument to continually repeat an historical falsehood?

This is what I honestly don't get about self described "skeptics": why can't facts change your opinions?

[Orrex]

101. And ANOTHER straw man. Amazing indeed!

why can't facts change your opinions?

That is a deliberate misstatement of the situation. It's not that facts can't change skeptics' opinions; it's that woos have a very loose definition of "facts" that includes--for instance--testimonial witnessing by the faithful and assertions that aren't supported by citation.

[HamdenRice]

102. "the folk explanation is largely a manufactured 20th C. myth"

This has been disproven over and over again.

Yet you continue to repeat it. So putting aside any conclusions about your epistemological processes, the question simply is:

"why"?

[Orrex]

106. And you answer with ANOTHER straw man. You're like a straw god or something.

Nowhere have I ever claimed that "the folk explanation is largely a manufactured 20th C. myth." Your requirement that I defend a comment that I haven't made is only the latest in your amazing string of straw men.

When do you propose that acupuncture as it is practiced today came into existence? If you claim that it has existed for thousands of years, then give us an explicit excerpted citation of this purported fact. Not a reference to some hoary tome written by the faithful, and not a mention of an ambiguous scrap of scroll from the 3rd century BCE. And don't bother with vague references to needles or meridians uttered around campfires three millennia hence; if it's not an explicit description credibly matching to today's practice, then you can skip it, because it's irrelevant.

"Why?" you might ask. Because if one were to claim that a vague description of needles and meridians is proof that acupuncture has been alive and well for 3,000 years, then one must also accept that alchemy is practiced today because because a supercollider succeeded in synthesizing Roentgenium. That is, vague philosophical connections do not equal a meaningful methodological lineage. Nor do metaphorical linkages indicate actual equivalence.

Western medicine has a tradition nearly as long as so-called Traditional Chinese Medicine, but no one tries to convince anyone of its validity by making asserting that fact, because age does not equal correctness. Instead, the validity of western medicine is shown through mountains of objective evidence and centuries of empirical study and countless instances of independent verification.

None of these exist in the case of acupuncture. If we ask for an equivalent verification of acupuncture's validity, what is the response? "It's been around for millennia, and (a handful of inconclusive) studies have suggested that there's something to it, and anyway my friend says that it cured his sinus infection."
Note for the slow: that's not a straw man, because I do not claim that HamdenRice has made such a statement; instead, it is an aggregaged caricature based on innumerable conversations with acupuncture's believers, and it may or may not reflect HamdenRice's views. I don't know, and in any case I don't hold him accountable for that view.

Even if acupuncture has been around long enough for Australopithicus to have practiced it, it doesn't matter unless we have objective confirmation of its efficacy (and it's unclear that we have this, as yet).


So here's what we're asking: give us a clear citation from a 3,000 year old text that shows unambiguously that acupuncture as currently practiced has in fact been around for that long. We are asking this because that is the claim being made: that acupuncture has been practiced for 3,000 years. Proponents of the practice do not claim that "it has its roots in ancient techniques" or that "it's a modern descendent of an ancient practice" or that "it resembles the healing arts practiced in ancient China." They claim that it has been practiced for three millennia, which is a claim of a very different sort, because it unequivocally implies continuous usage with only minor alteration.

Let them support their claim.

[HamdenRice]

137. See post 113 nt

[The Traveler]

70. The implausability of ki

What is implausable to you is exploited freely by others. Plausibility is largely a matter of your frame of reference, what your previously acquired knowledge and experience prepares you to perceive. And science is only one way of knowing things.

My degree is in physics and I have worked as an engineer for a long time now. So I know something about the scientific method and about statics and dynamics.

In my very first aikido lesson, the instructor had me doing a couple little things which I could not explain adequately through the application of classical mechanics. I demonstrated for a couple colleagues. They couldn't figure it out either.

Aikido is a martial art which emphasizes the manipulation of this implausible ki to achieve certain physical effects. Some of these effects are mildly startling.

Now, aikido is interesting and all that but I really prefer the hard contact arts like kempo or kung fu. I wasn't an adept student ... my reflexes were trained differently, and I had to unlearn a bunch of stuff I didn't really want to unlearn. So I didn't stick with it long, and returned after a brief time to kung fu. Now that I am older I have greater appreciation for its technique ... easier on the joints.

But I know from having sparred with people who have practiced aikido for years, what is implausible for you may cause me a real problem on the sparring floor.

And, BTW, having lots of experience with sports injuries, it sure does seem to me I heal up fastest with a combination of the best of modern medical practice and discrete visits to my friendly neighborhood accupuncturist. The needles seem to take a week or two off the recovery time when I tweak my knee or shoulder. Not sure endorphins account for that, but maybe they do.

Trav

[Book Lover]

72. Never send an engineer to do a kinesiologist's job

I think if you also had a better understanding of the materials involved, you may have found the explaination for these (undefined by you) "little things" that puzzled you. I'm curious - what were they?

[The Traveler]

74. A couple of exercises

One involved rolling from a half lotus like position onto your back, back up into the half lotus. Do this several times, then stop upright while concentrating on projecting your ki toward a spot on the wall. Focus. Focus. A partner then tries to push you over by pushing on your chest.

Now, this is a fairly easy thing for the partner to accomplish. Put a hand on the subject's chest and push slightly and because the posture offers no possibility of resistance, the subject easily rolls backwards. Unless the subject is focused on projecting ki, in which case it becomes much more difficult, and if the subject is adept at the exercise it requires considerable effort.

Not sure what you meant by "materials involved".

Trav

[greyl]

75. Here are some more:

www.bodymindandmodem.com/CoolKi/CoolKi.html

Unfortunately, the "So, what did I just learn?" sections don't quite cut it, for they never mention the word leverage. There is something to learning how to use ones body i.e. muscle control, and the demonstrations can seem to go against common sense, but ki isn't necessary to explain any of this.

Didn't many of us discover the unliftable body thing when we were kids?

[The Traveler]

76. OK

First of all, in the exercise I was taught we were NOT in a seiza position as described on this site. Seiza is a kneeling position. Let me be more detailed. When upright, one was in a sort of half lotus. Left foot tucked under, right foot flat on the floor. Roll backwards. Swap feet. Do that a few times, focusing. Come up, "projecting". This is a pretty strong posture against a pressure applied to the back, but provides little to no resistance to a pressure applied to the chest. (Basically, you just roll back. All you can do to oppose that is to try to lean forward against the pressure and try to grip the floor with your butt cheeks. Doesn't help. Over ya go.)

And as I said, when not focusing it is really easy for someone to push you over on your back. But the beginning student can summon enough whatever it is to add considerable resistance through "projection of ki", whatever that means.


You wrote: "There is something to learning how to use ones body i.e. muscle control, and the demonstrations can seem to go against common sense, but ki isn't necessary to explain any of this." Oh yeah? Prove that. :)

Like I said, my training is in physics. So all I ask is that you draw a free body diagram and show me the force vectors that account for this behavior. Now, maybe YOUR butt cheeks are capable of that kind of control, but I doubt mine are. :evilgrin:

What's going on with this? I really don't know. The ki model is as good as any other I've come up with, and I actually spent a fair amount of time fiddlin' with that free body diagram ...

Trav

[Orrex]

95. You're aware that we have instruments capable of detecting even one photon, right?

Yet somehow this magical qi is able to elude detection even by these sensitive devices? Further, its alleged behavior would make it different from any known and verified form of energy, and its existence would require the rewriting of a great deal of our understanding of physics. This is problematic, because our undestanding of physics has yielded great scientific advances, while assertions about qi have not.

That's an extraordinary claim if ever there was one; therefore it is up to the proponents of qi to verify this magical energy with a great deal of objective certainty. That means that anecdotes about "you can't push me over" don't cut it.


Of course, as an engineer with training in physics, you know that already...

[HamdenRice]

98. Have you checked the Science Forum lately?

There was a post about tunneling nano tubes recently discovered that create a form of communication between cells.

What makes you think that every form of intra cellular communication has already been discovered?

You seem to be saying that because we cannot yet measure anything like qi, therefore it cannot exist. Yet just recently, as the Science Forum news item showed, science discovered a new phenomenon.

The doctors and scientists I know would disagree with your basic epistemological position, because to them, despite all we do know, there are vast vistas of undiscovered biological phenomena.

[Orrex]

99. Yet another straw man. You're amazing!

Nowhere do I say (or seem to be saying) that because we cannot yet measure anything like qi, therefore it cannot exist. That formulation is your own, so I see no reason to defend it.

And the fact that a new biological process has been discovered is irrelevant, because that new process does not require the dismantling of most of our knowledge of physics. You're playing the old "they didn't know about electrons, either" card, and it's a red herring. Nice try.

Proponents of qi endlessly refer to it as "energy," so as energy I shall critique it. If it is energy, then it can be detected like energy, and it must behave like energy. Or do you propose that it's some kind of magical super-energy that can't be detected or observed except by those who believe in it? If so, then you wouldn't be the first to make that claim, even in this forum. And that's not a straw man; it's a request for confirmation.

So, to spare you the burden of having to formulate yet another straw man, here is my claim: if qi is actually energy, as so many proponents describe it to be (including TheTraveler), then it must obey the laws that govern the movement and behavior of energy.

Of course, first it must be shown to exist, which hasn't been done, either.

[HamdenRice]

104. OK, let's try to simplify the question

"qi is able to elude detection" -- is that your claim?

But if acupuncture changes a patient's subjective state by manipulating qi, then it has been detected -- even if its exact nature has not been described to western medicine, much the way vaccination was developed before there was a full fledged theory and description of the microbial basis for communicable disease.

"qi endlessly refer to it as "energy" " "if qi is actually energy..." -- No actually it is refered to as qi, and it is repeatedly mentioned that there is no direct translation into English. (Above the OP was calling it vapor arising from food.)

Calling it "energy" and then saying no device that detects energy can detect qi is, I'm sure you'll agree, quite silly. Here's an analogy. Let's say you went to a culture that understood heat and electricity, but not magnetism. You tell that culture there's this force called magnetism that is related to electricity and energy. Your response would be, I can't measure it with a thermometer or an electrical meter, so it must not exist.

"then it must obey the laws that govern the movement and behavior of energy." -- Talk about straw men. Consider neurological impulses or hormonal signals within the body or any number of other forms of communication between organs, tissues or cells (like the newly discovered nano tubes). None of them behave like energy. So, if you tried to measure "energy" to detect, say, the way the adrenal glands affect blood pressure, you wouldn't find it. If qi exists, why would you expect it to behave like energy, but not like the many other systems of inter-cellular communication that exist, and that daily we discover new versions of?

And why on earth would yet a new method of inter cellular communication require the laws of physics to be re-written. What you've written makes almost no sense at all!

[Orrex]

110. You can't possibly believe any of that!

But if acupuncture changes a patient's subjective state by manipulating qi, then it has been detected.

Are you kidding? To make such an absurd claim, you have to make at least two assumptions, neither of which is borne out by evidence:

1. Qi exists
2. Qi can be manipulated via acupuncture

Only after assuming 1 and 2 can you even try to formulate a hypothesis, such as:
Manipulation of qi via acupuncture can change a patient's subjective state.

But since you have no evidence that 1 or 2 is remotely true, then the hypothesis is either a non sequitur or an outright assumption.

Calling it "energy" and then saying no device that detects energy can detect qi is, I'm sure you'll agree, quite silly. Here's an analogy. Let's say you went to a culture that understood heat and electricity, but not magnetism. You tell that culture there's this force called magnetism that is related to electricity and energy. Your response would be, I can't measure it with a thermometer or an electrical meter, so it must not exist.

You have an ill-formed understanding of science, just as that hypothetical culture of yours has an ill-formed understanding of energy. In order to demonstrate to them that magnetism is related to electricity (which you stipulate is known to them), then it is necessary to educate them in the precise nature of magnetism, the theory and equations that describe its workings. Thereafter, magnetism can be illustrated via experiments and demonstrations, after which there will still be scoffers (whom you would, no doubt, term "skeptics"). But those who are willing to observe your demonstrations with an open mind will, after seeing how the explanation correlates with the demonstrations, accept it.

To return to your analogy, I invite you tell us the precise nature of qi (I remind you that there are at least three separate and inconsistent explanations in this thread, at least two of them offered by you). Then I invite you to perform experiments and demonstrations to show that qi behaves as you describe (which no one has ever done--correct me if I'm wrong); these experiments should leave no question that qi is responsible for the observed effects, rather than some other phenomenon (which I guarantee you that no one has ever done). Until you can do either of these, then you're just witnessing.

"then it must obey the laws that govern the movement and behavior of energy." -- Talk about straw men. Consider neurological impulses or hormonal signals within the body or any number of other forms of communication between organs, tissues or cells (like the newly discovered nano tubes). None of them behave like energy. So, if you tried to measure "energy" to detect, say, the way the adrenal glands affect blood pressure, you wouldn't find it. If qi exists, why would you expect it to behave like energy, but not like the many other systems of inter-cellular communication that exist, and that daily we discover new versions of?

With that statement you attempt to move the goal posts. Qi has been repeatedly asserted as a form of energy that can function external to the body, while no other internal neurological process can do this. If it is your assertion that these earlier descriptions of qi are faulty, please state this explicitly. If you wish to have it both ways, then please explain how the posited internal neurological process can directly affect the external world (by overcoming leverage, or by allowing one to adopt a "heavy" stance in martial arts, for instance).

And why on earth would yet a new method of inter cellular communication require the laws of physics to be re-written. What you've written makes almost no sense at all!

If you're referring to qi, then it would require a rewriting of physics because it would posit a new form of energy that behaves like no other form of energy and which, moreover, directly responds to human will! Further, this magical energy can somehow be manipulated by steel needles but does not interact with them in any detectable fashion (except by the claims of the practitioners and the testimony of the faithful). That would be a remarkable form of energy, indeed, and it would require a remarkable revision of our understanding of physics.


I am about to articulate an assessment that might be construed as an ad hominem, though it is not intended as such. Specifically, I am not claiming that your arguments are invalid because of my assessment, because your arguments fail due to their own weaknesses. Nevertheless, here's my assessment:

The more I read of your postings, the more thoroughly I am convinced that you are either joking or else entirely ignorant of science and the scientific method. Having encountered arguments similar to yours in the past, and having formed a similar assessment of those who espouse those arguments, I expect that you'll reply with some wordy description of your scientific credentials, just as they have done. That's fine, and I won't begrudge you that, if it makes you feel better. Nevertheless, your arguments in this thread and elsewhere demonstrate a clear and undeniable failure to grasp even the basics of what constitutes scientific evidence.

[HamdenRice]

118. Have you ever taken a college level course in biology?

because if you haven't, I'm not sure that you're salvageable enough to have a conversation with about the issues raised in my post.

I suspect you haven't. Please post some evidence or assertion as to your basic comprehension of fundamental biology before we continue.

[Orrex]

121. Yet another ad hominem.

Instead of addressing anything I wrote, you attacked me and my credentials, and you didn't support any of your arguments or assertions, either. Typical.



Incidentally, I don't answer to you, friend, so I'm not impressed by your demands that I provide documentation of this or that.

[HamdenRice]

127. "Qi has been repeatedly asserted as a form of energy that can function external to the body...

while no other internal neurological process can do this."

Have you ever heard of "language"? It arises in the brain, is transmitted to the vocal chords and mouth, and becomes a form of energy (sound) external to the body.

Your posts are so full of nonsense, that when I come across this kind of crackpottery, I just stop reading.

[Orrex]

131. Personal attack

And you're changing the goalposts once again.

[HamdenRice]

136. It's a "personal attack" to point out that sound produced by vocal chords, is energy?

Reminds me of the Colbert line (or was it Stewart?) -- facts have a liberal bias.

You seem to be saying that pointing out that a claim you made is obviously wrong -- so wrong as to qualify as a "crackpot" idea -- is a "personal attack."

[Orrex]

141. The personal attack was in the mocking, not in the purported argument

Language is external to the body in a way that is wholly (and, I should think, self-evidently) separate from the way that you're claiming qi can function. You're reasoning by metaphor, rather than by evidence.

So your post was a personal attack, and your subsequent argument is a non sequitur.

[HamdenRice]

144. "the way that you're claiming qi can function"

And just how have I claimed qi functions? My main claim is that the article in the OP is wrong on almost every historical and linguistic claim it makes, and that therefore it's claims about acupuncture in general are not to be taken seriously.

As for language, you made a categorical statement that was wrong. Sorry if you take that as an insult.

[Orrex]

149. Have you read anything you've written?

You've advocated for The Traveler, thereby endorsing his view of qi function.

You've advocated for amitten, thereby endorsing her view of qi function.

And you've put forth at least two (and possibly three) different ways that qi might function.


Read back through what you've posted, if you can stomach it, and you'll see what I mean.

[HamdenRice]

151. If you think I've advocated for a specific function of qi

it should be easy for you to cut and paste it in response to this post.

Give it your best shot!

[Orrex]

154. So, let me get this straight

You want me to make your argument for you and refute it?

[HamdenRice]

156. No, I'm asking you to back up your own sentence: "the way that you're claiming qi can function"

You can't back up your statement that I have a claim about how "qi can function" (your own words). If I've made a claim about how "qi can function" in this thread, you should be able to point to it in this thread.

Can you?

If you can't -- i.e., if you are mischaracterizing my claims in order to refute the mischaracterized claim rather than to refute my actual actual claim -- then there's a word for your rhetorical strategy:





:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Gosh, sometimes, this is like shooting fish in a barrel!


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[The Traveler]

103. Take some training

See for yourself. Frankly, I don't have to prove anything, and neither do you. You are free to check this sort of thing out or not as you desire. On the other hand, I have no obligation to abstain from exploiting this kind of phenomena just because you can't find it with your photon detector.

There's a problem talking about this sort of stuff.

First, scientist types (myself included) tend to confuse the map with the territory. There are no "true" scientific theories or models. There are only models that allow one to make useful predictions about nature's behavior under certain conditions.

Brief example. Einstein's mechanics is not "true", but it makes more useful predictions than Newton's under certain conditions. No one resorts to Einstein when building a car engine, but one must when building a particle accelerator. Still, we know Einstein's formalisms are not the final word and newer formalisms are extending our ability to better predict nature's behavior under more extreme conditions. Still, those formalisms have lead us to arcane concepts like dark matter ... matter with which we can have no interaction, and cannot directly detect ... an hypothetical construct introduced to explain things and while keeping our theoretical models intact ... philosophically identical in purpose and form to the idea of Ki. (I am not saying Ki == dark matter ... I am saying both are ideas introduced to explain something and their common epistemological form is basically an acknowledgement of our ignorance.)

And your photon detector is equally useless when tasked to detect either. But one construct is deemed "scientific" ... it is on your map, and thus you conclude it is a feature of the territory. And it may be ... and if so ... there may be other "undetectable" features of the universe of significance ...

So what's going on? Really, I don't have a clue. Certainly not about dark matter. I have seen demonstrated some really weird things. I have done, as I mentioned before, lesser but still really weird things. Me, I take note of the weird things, hang a question mark on 'em, make use of them when I can. It is true my "evidence" is only experiential or anecdotal. The only way I can share it with you is point you to a dojo, in trust that you will have similar experiences.

Unlike scientific evidence (which history has shown is frequently overturned by fresh and more detailed evidence) I cannot share my evidence with you in a standard fashion. You are certainly under no obligation to take my word for it. I am certainly under no obligation to remain silent about it. And if you hear me, you are free to express a contrary opinion, even in a snarky manner.

Accupuncture works, at least in my experience. Martial arts techniques that exploits "ki" (whatever the hell it is) work, at least in my experience. And if that doesn't fall into place on your map, that is not my problem.

Trav

[HamdenRice]

109. "tend to confuse the map with the territory. There are no "true" scientific theories or models"

This is the most difficult concept for the self described "skeptics" to grasp. I suspect, but don't know as a fact, that although they cloak themselves with the authority of science, they have little scientific training, because this is one of the more profound and ever present aspects of the epistemological condition of the scientific endeavor. The fact that they can't grasp it suggests very little exposure to real science.

The validity of acupuncture to those who accept it, is in its efficaciousness, not in its claims to have revealed some sort of truth about reality.

[Orrex]

111. Oh, brother

No one who understands science is so deluded as to think that scientific fact is literal fact. A scientific fact is simply an explanation that has been demonstrated with such consistency that it does not demand a per-case reexamination. Such a "fact" is sufficiently well-established that it would take considerable evidence to uproot that fact.

The validity of acupuncture to those who accept it, is in its efficaciousness, not in its claims to have revealed some sort of truth about reality.

And here we see the basic, underlying flaw in your reasoning, and it runs throughout everything you've posted in this and similar threads: "If I believe it, then it is true."

[HamdenRice]

125. Your post contradicts itself

It also contradicts the epistemology of turtlensue. Maybe you should have your (somewhat confused) debate with her.

[Orrex]

132. Non sequitur

Your posts get wilder and wilder as we go on.

[The Traveler]

114. Read an article a while back

Some of the standard model boys have come up with a disturbing question ... which is (to simply) if it is possible based on the emerging formalisms to distinguish this phenomenological universe we think we live in from a simulation of a such?

Now, frankly I am speculating more as to their sources of the ganja than I am about the possibility that we are all accidental results of a simulation running on some alien's super-computer. Nor will I claim to understand the statements of modern physics that apparently drove them to such speculation. I'm about 20 years behind on developments in quantum mechanics and such. But still, it raises an interesting question.

If our physics is disappearing into a tangled knot of contradiction and abstractions so far removed from our experience, is it possible that we are approaching the limits of the human brain's ability to understand things through reason? In other words, should we proceed with the expectation that the human brain is adequately equipped to understand the universe, or should we proceed with the acceptance that we are never going to understand but that we can do little better next year?

Science advances, and replaces its models with better ones as time goes on. That which is called "undetectable" is perhaps better termed "as yet undetectable". We really don't know where this leads, or how far it goes.

That, of course, is all part of the fun.

Trav

[HamdenRice]

128. I have read something like that as well

Another interesting reality bender is the concept of the universe as hologram

(Metaphor alert! metaphor alert! for those terminally incapable of grasping metaphor -- namely, its an analogy, and does not mean that the universe literally is some giant alien's hologram.)

The idea was to explain spooky action at a distance, and the basic insight is that every piece of the universe has all the information to describe the whole universe.

Science is indeed creating ever more complex and overlapping "maps" of reality that at minimum discredit the hyper materialist view that bedevils the minds of certain literal minded non-scientists.

[TZ]

116. Want to challenge my background?

I DO have more scientific training that 99% of the poeple on this board. I accept the scientific evidence of acupuncture (which there is some). However just because all of the data cannot be explained scientifically (yet) doesn't mean its some sort of mystical woo mumbo jumbo. And that crap about no true scientific model IS BULLCRAP! Anyone who deals with immunology like I do WHICH QUANIFIES amounts of drugs and antibodies and matches theory (and you STILL don't understand what scientific theory means).
YOU are the one who lacks the scientific background. YOU are the one who is arrogant enough to think because you claim to know a scientist who thinks X,Y,Z is correct that YOU have all the answers. Your ignorance of science and the scientific methods is profound...and its makes THIS proverb true.."a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

This po mo philosophy of science is total bullshit and I've never heard any scientist embrace it. But hey, I worked at NIH so I haven't ever worked with scientists right?

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Traveler]

120. I worked for Dod and NASA

for 15 years. Aerospace stuff. On board instrumentation and control. (Then I sold out and went to work for various commercial enterprises. Pays better. Not as much fun.)

I don't question your background. I do question your understanding of the scientific method. I suggest a reading or re-reading of Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

[Orrex]

122. Were you part of NASA's Advanced Qi Studies group?

Just wondering.

[HamdenRice]

124. "I DO have more scientific training that 99% of the poeple on this board."

I would never have guessed it. From your postings, in which you describe yourself as a lab tech, I would have guessed you are a lab tech.

You certainly don't have a the demeanor or presentation of a scientist.

[Orrex]

133. Personal attack

[HamdenRice]

139. Pointing out that someone self identifies as a lab tech

is a personal attack?

That doesn't make sense.

[Orrex]

142. Presuming, in your standard arrogant tone, to judge someone's demeanor

For instance, if I were to claim that your demeanor suggests that you're an uncontrollable coprophage, that would be a personal attack.

Therefore, I would never claim such a thing.

[HamdenRice]

146. So you believe that a

a lab tech and a coprophage are similar?

Or that calling someone who self identifies as a lab tech, a lab tech, is the equivalent of calling someone a coprophage.

Wow, you must really not like lab techs!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If I were turtlensue, I'd feel really insulted!

[Orrex]

150. I'm tempted to reply in a way that got one of Trotsky's posts deleted

But suffice it to say that your rhetorical tactics suggest that you will indeed enjoy the glue and sharp scissors.

[HamdenRice]

153. Except that ...

discussing poo -- which you initiated -- is one of the hallmarks of the behavior of the very early learner. So it's perplexing that you would persist in using that kind of insult after raising the poo issue.

[Orrex]

155. If you'd read what I wrote, I was speaking hypothetically

I most certainly did not call you an uncontrollable coprophage.

[TZ]

115. Oh bullshit!

What the hell am I doing then when I QUANTIFY THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DRUG IN A PATIENTS SYSTEM? Am I waving a wand? Am I thinking REALLY hard about something. Am I wishing on a star. How about when my data on the amount of drug in the system matches with an immunological advice? Did we just get lucky? How can I measure precise amountds of antibodies that respond to said drug?
Don't give me this no true scientific models bullshit.

[The Traveler]

119. Seem to have touched a nerve

So which is true? Newtonian, Relativistic, or Quantum Mechanics?

Science does not capture truth. People who understand the scientific method get that. (Here's a hint though. Experiment cannot prove hypothesis. Ever. Experiment can only reject hypothesis. Newton's work resisted experimental rejection for a long time ... but we all know how that went in the long run.) Science allows us to construct models which are useful. All your statements above boil down to operations conducted in the conceptual framework of models which have proven useful, and which are likely to be subsequently refined if not completely replaced with further advances.

Your references are from the life sciences, and I have had this argument with medical students before. The philosophical distinction is perhaps of less immediate practical signficance to a biologist or medical student than it is to a theoretical physicist.

[Orrex]

123. 'So which is true? Newtonian, Relativistic, or Quantum Mechanics?'

Why don't you tell us what you mean by "true," because otherwise I'm pretty sure that you're trying to pull a bit of linguistic three-card-monty.

There certainly are scientific facts, and there are definitely scientific truths. However, neither of these is purported to be immutable or transcendent; they are, instead, the most certain explanations available to us at a given time in a given context. So they're not "true" in the way that so-called "revealed truth" is claimed to be true, but I'll put my money on them over some nut's revelation any day of the week.

Therefore, to answer your little three-question-monty, they're all true, depending on how and when and where and at what scale you're asking the question.

However, no one has yet put forth an unambiguous and scientifically verifiable context in which qi has been shown to be true in anything but a metaphorical sense, which is to say "not at all."


And are you one of those theoretical physicists who believes that quantum mechanics somehow links up with Buddhist mysticism? Just curious.

[HamdenRice]

129. "What the hell am I doing then when I QUANTIFY THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DRUG ..."

Taking instructions from your superiors, perhaps?

:shrug:

I suspect that may explain the difference in epistemological outlook between you and the scientists I know.

[Orrex]

134. Non sequitur

Wilder and wilder.

[The Traveler]

71. Sources would be nice

That part of the article certainly contradicts everything I had been told about the history of the art. But, like I said, it is not a thing I have worried about or studied in any significant way, so I feel I am in no position to contribute anything on that aspect of the topic.

I agree. Hitting my thumb with a hammer releases endorphins. But, still, the thumb will hurt and my knee and shoulder will feel no better. On the other hand 30 minutes with some needles and the pain is much reduced, range of motion is significantly improved, and these happy effects normally last for a few days.

When my much maligned joints are afflicted, I typically use both physical therapy and accupuncture to recover. Sometimes I skip the needles. I usually wind up regretting it ... takes longer to get back to normal activity ... but my physical therapist gets more of my money that way so she's semi happy.

[juno jones]

4. Works for me and my husband.

It released something in my shoulder that was pressing on one of my nerves. My left hand had been numb for some time and finally, out of desapration, I went to the acupuncturist. I found the process relaxing and within 12 hours I had feeling back in my hand.

Personally, I don't care if science can explain it or not, perhaps we haven't discovered the mechanism yet. I don't get why scientists, even when confronted with the historical evolution of their knowledge, aren't more open to accepting that not everything is a known quantity-as of yet. We might someday discover the mechanics of what is referred to as 'chi' when measured by physics that are yet to be discovered. Never say never, guys, I mean that hand-washing thing worked out after all, didn't it? I would also point out that for every negative paper there are at least as many studies showing it's effectiveness.

[HamdenRice]

31. "scientists ... more open to accepting"

Actually they are. I know scientists and a professor of medicine who accept acupuncture.

What you're reading on this thread is wannabe non-scientists posing as close minded "skeptics."

Look below, and you'll see cites concerning the growing real scientific consensus about acupuncture. That's because doctors and scientists are concerned with results, not with the close minded fundamentalism of self described "skeptics."

[juno jones]

66. Some of my best friends are scientists :)

I am aware that many scientists are quite open minded, but it always amazes me to find ones who are stuck. IMO, Curiosity should be one requirement for the job.

I did not mean to broad-brush, only poke at a certain conservatism some have that has historically allowed this kind of dogmatic skepticism based on simplistic and outdated worldviews.

Personally, I enjoy the benefits and wonders of science. I applaud the scientists who are advancing us and are open minded enough to observe phenomena and attribute results even when the action by which those results are obtained are still unknown.

No scientists were harmed in the making of this comment :D

[Orrex]

68. The preferred term is 'closed minded,' if you please

Because that eliminates any confusion re: close (but no cigar) vs. close (the door, please).

Anyway, do the scientists and professor o' medicine accept acupuncture as a system in which needles are inserted to manipulate the flow of chi, or do they accept that there is some evidence that acupuncture can be of some measurable physiological effect for some people?

If the former, then let them put forth their evidence that chi exists and is manipulated as described. You're welcome to provide that evidence in their absence. If my request for evidence is taken as a sign of my closed-mindedness, so be it. I've been accused of worse.

If the latter, then I'd have to say no kidding. The OP's cited article notwithstanding, I'm not yet ready to throw out acupuncture in its entirety. I simply reject the claim that this hoary system can be used to manipulate a form of energy that has never been demonstrated--much less proven--to exist.

[HamdenRice]

77. The two I talk to most often about this are both fans of Thomas Kuhn

so they would probably say the answer is somewhere in between. If you are a Kuhnist, then "qi" or the "manipulation of qi" is a heuristic system for causing certain outcomes in patients. Whether it "actually exists" (whatever than means beyond its pragmatic value) is beside the point; the same could be said of conventional scientific models.

For example, if you go into an introductory chemistry class, you will be presented with a heuristic model of atoms and molecules, in which atoms and molecules look a lot like the so called "planetary model." If you have a physics class, however, your heuristic model may present electrons as a cloud of probabilities. Then you go to your organic chemistry class, and your heuristic model of organic molecules will look like rigid tinker toys.

It doesn't matter which model is "true"; what matters is that the first model better enables you to do conventional chemistry, the second model enables you to do physics and the third model enables you to make and dismantle large organic chemicals.

As researchers, they routinely observe phenomena that cannot currently be explained by the conventional scientific model, so those phenomena currently stay outside the model. Some may eventually be explained and hence incorporated within the model; others will not, and, according to the Kuhnian view, the model itself would have to change in a "paradigm shift." Moreover, they have to routinely talk about phenomena that are currently explained within the model using non-sensical language, such as, "the enzyme then passes the substrate to the next enzyme"; everyone knows this cannot be what's happening, but it's a convenient ad hoc modification to the model that enables one to get a particular outcome done.

To them, "qi" is a heuristic model that enables a doctor to achieve outcomes s/he cannot achieve with the conventional medical model.

[TZ]

80. Hey Its call anybody who disagrees with me a fundamentalist guy!

Whoo-hoo. Nice to see you stay the same from forum to forum! Fundamentalist scientists. Thats a good one!
BTW, most skeptics say this..yes, acupuncture does help in CERTAIN cases. But IT IS NOT A CURE ALL..as alot of woos seem to think.
Now--whos being closed minded here..the scientists who stick with scientific data...or the beleievers who take acupuncture on faith alone and refuse to think rationally about it!

So am I a "wanna be scientist"? Even though I do science as a profession?

[HamdenRice]

92. "Fundamentalist scientists" ??

Real scientists are, by self-selection and professional necessity, curious and therefore open minded to new phenomena.

It's the lab tech types that tend to have a closed minded view, and that's because many have little real understanding of the grand endeavor in which they play the role of peons and water carriers.

The problem on on-line forums occurs when the lab tech types begin representing themselves to be "scientists" and "skeptics".

[HamdenRice]

5. Wow, there's so much wrong here it's hard to know where to begin

But I would say that just from this excerpt, the writer is pretty much "self-discrediting." When someone writes something with so many errors in the first few paragraphs, why should I believe anything else he has to say?

First of all, never let a pseudo scientist lose on cultural/anthropological questions:

"Qi was originally vapor arising from food, and meridians were channels or vessels. ..."

I assume the writer is referring to the overall cultural framework, paradigm and heuristic system of the Chinese that relies on "Qi" (pronounced "chee"). There is no translation of Qi to English. In the ancient origins of Chinese language, it is true that the first use of Qi was something like "vapor arising from food," but that image became a metaphor for other concepts and phenomena. So Qi also meant spirit -- in the same way that the aroma of food rises from food, the spirit of a person rises. It also means "energy," and the manipulation of energy in the body became the basis for the Chinese practice of medicine. Qi also is used as the word for gas, or air. It's so abstract that it cannot be translated into English, but saying that it is just vapor arising from food, is like saying that the English words, spirit, spiritualism, inspire, inspiration, respiratory, and respiration, all just mean "breath" because the Latin root was the word for breath.

Qi is the operative word in such diverse practices as Tai Qi and Qi Gong.

Then the author seems to think that the manipulation of Qi somehow comes from the Greeks because they used needles, and that acupuncture can't be an ancient Chinese practice because it "only" dates from 400 years ago in its current form.

The author's most self-contradictory passage is this: "Acupuncture works in the same manner that placebos work. It has been shown to “work” to relieve pain, nausea, and other subjective symptoms, but it has never been shown to alter the natural history or course of any disease."

So it relieves pain, eliminates nausea, but does not alter the course of the disease? Well then, let's just fire all the anesthesiologists. I could go on and on with this piece, but it's just silly. And I don't even have a definitive position on acupuncture, only that this analysis is yet another example of illogic and stupidity masquerading as "scientific authority" -- something that the self-proclaimed "skeptic" community does with alarming regularity.

The author says, "Almost everything you’ve heard about acupuncture is wrong." But it seems that he starts out with an analysis in which everything he says is wrong. Why should I take this guy seriously?

[salvorhardin]

7. Not quite

I assume the writer is referring to the overall cultural framework, paradigm and heuristic system of the Chinese that relies on "Qi" (pronounced "chee").

Actually, she's referring to the historical usage of the the concept of Qi in acupuncture and reports that there is no historical record before 1939 of Qi and meridians being associated with acupuncture.

From the article:

The first Westerner to write about acupuncture, Wilhelm ten Rhijn, in 1680, didn’t describe acupuncture as we know it today: he didn’t mention specific points or “qi;” he spoke of large gold needles that were implanted deep into the skull or “womb” and left in place for 30 respirations

and

Through the early 20th century, no Western account of acupuncture referred to acupuncture points: needles were simply inserted near the point of pain. Qi was originally vapor arising from food, and meridians were channels or vessels. A Frenchman, Georges Soulie de Morant, was the first to use the term “meridian” and to equate qi with energy — in 1939.

The point is that acupuncture as practiced today is largely an invention of twentieth century alternative medicine practitioners. No doubt that Qi is a nebulous term with no direct correlative in English, but that's precisely why it was so adaptable to acupuncture. It was vague to the point of meaninglessness and exploited both pseudoscientific notions and 19th/early 20th C. Western romanticism of the Orient. In other words, Qi as used in acupuncture is a modern Western construct.

[HamdenRice]

9. That makes no sense

How could the author admit that acupuncture is 400 years old, but claim there is no reference to qi before 1939, when qi is a fundamental concept in Chinese medicine. Considering there are so many inaccuracies in the first paragraph, why would you believe anything this writer purports to be true?

Moreover, you are missing the point about qi, its derivation and its "meaninglessness."

The English word "energy" can be used in a discussion of physics in a very precise way represented in equations, but I could also describe a person's personality as energetic. I could discuss the biochemistry of Kreb cycle energy transport (when in fact I'm talking about electrons and ATP) and also say that a nerve enervates a muscle. That doesn't mean that the word "energy" is vague to the point of meaninglessness; it means it has many meanings.

Qi is one of the fundamental concepts of Chinese medicine, as used in Chinese medical discourse. It has no equivalent in English when used in this way because qi is not part of our heuristic structure. Yet if science is a way of successfully manipulating our environment and physical selves then this Chinese heuristic device "works" (as the author of the article himself admits!) even if in the west we have no category for analyzing it.

You might want to check out the classic of the history and philosophy of science, Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in order to understand the argument that I'm making, which I really am only summarizing from conversations with several high level scientists and a professor of medicine I know.

Just because the paradigm of western medicine cannot analyze a phenomenon doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is why the pseudo skeptics never seem able to come to terms with the scientific concept of the placebo as an actual effect rather than as a mere statistical artifact -- whereas real scientists look at it quite differently.

[trotsky]

11. Well, HR, this should be easy for you to dispel then.

Just provide a reference from earlier than 1939 that defines "qi" (preferably a LOT earlier than 1939, since you claim it's a "fundamental concept in Chinese medicine") as today's acupuncturists use it.

Shouldn't be too difficult, should it? We'll wait.

[salvorhardin]

13. It's amazing how he assumes that we aren't familiar with Kuhn

It's also amazing how he keeps missing the point. It's like it's almost intentional.

[HamdenRice]

17. Because if you read it, the insights went right over your head nt

[cosmik debris]

14. Maybe he'll produce secret documents

From the Soviet archives!

:rofl:

That was one of my favorite HR moments.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

84. No you caught yourself unable to understand the concept of

publication of the same material in two different places. You just continue to believe what you want to believe, as most fundamentalists do.

[cosmik debris]

85. You can't spin your way out with ad hominem attacks.

:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

16. Would you prefer the National Cancer Society or Rheumatology

published at Oxford? Both sources confirm that acupuncture is ancient and involves the manipulation of qi:

http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/acupuncture/Patient/page2

http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/5/662

But if you want a specific text, you could look at a classic, like "Yi Xue Yuan Liu Lun," by Xu Da-chun (1757), who was a reformer of the acupuncture practices of the mid 1700s, summarized here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=E_tZEM_DxJ4C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%22yi+xue+yuan+liu+lun%22+qi&source=bl&ots=kDWAS1JRZS&sig=l2xI2Atob6sCXmk3m4aNGM-bcMc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Or just google "Xu Da-chun" and "qi" and find out for yourself.

Or you might take a look at this summary of early acupuncture texts:

http://www.acupuncture.com/education/theory/historyacu.htm

Traditionally dated from -2698 to -2598, but now agreed to have been completed in the -2nd to the -1st century, the Nei Jing is truly a cornerstone of acupuncture. It is comprised of 162 articles divided into two sections, each composed of multiple books. In the first book, Su Wen, or "Fundamental Questions," the conversation clarifies points of medical theory. The second book is named Ling Shu, or "Spiritual Axis/Pivot" and is essentially an acupuncture manual. These two texts together not only explain the assimilation and extension of the yin-yang theory and the incorporation of the five-phase doctrine, they also provide a focus on individual symptoms as somatic rather than supernatural events. By the time of the Nei Jing, all of the currently defined 12 regular channels as well as 135 bilateral acupoints were identified. Together, about 295 of the 670 presently accepted acupoints were known. Furthermore, the channels were illustrated as carrying qi, described partly as a product of the body and partly as a product of the environment. Either the disruption of "healthy" bodily qi or the "evil" external qi were said to induce illness.

<end quote>

The idea that acupuncture did not involve the manipulation of qi before 1939 is so dumb, so uninformed, so counter-factual, so preposterous, that arguing with someone who posits such an idea is like arguing with someone who posits that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the Leaning Tower of Piza is in Russia.

It's invincible ignorance parading as scientific authority.

So can we all agree that the author cited in the OP is a wingnut who hasn't a clue what he is talking about?

If the OP article gets such fundamental things wrong, why would you trust anything he has to say?

None of the self described skeptics seem to be able to answer that question.

[salvorhardin]

18. Why do you keep referring to the author as he?

That aside, how could the Chinese have been practicing acupuncture thousands of years ago when the technology for manufacturing thin steel needles didn't exist more than 400 years ago? Are you also asserting that the Chinese had advanced metallurgy thousands of years ago?

And once again, no one is disputing that Qi and Li are not essential concepts in Chinese culture. What is being disputed is the manipulation of Qi via acupuncture as a ancient Chinese practice. As far as I know, the Huangdi Neijing does talk about Yin and Yang but does not mention acupuncture except in the way of bloodletting.

[trotsky]

21. Thank you, sh.

What is being disputed is the manipulation of Qi via acupuncture as a ancient Chinese practice.

HR doesn't appear to grasp this.

[salvorhardin]

27. The one thing I will partly concede is...

The one thing I will partly concede is that I don't know what to make of the author's assertion that acupuncture may have come to the Chinese via Hippocrates. It's based on a slideshow by the late Dr. Robert Imrie who in turned based his belief on assertions made by Dr. Paul Unschuld in his book Chinese Medicine. Unschuld asserted that Qi Bo, the author attributed to the Huangdi Neijing, was actually Hippocrates. Sure, it sounds good as presented in Imrie's slideshow, but I have no way of judging the historical validity of UnSchuld's argument.

ETA: That doesn't change the fact that the Huangdi Neijing does not refer to acupuncture as it is practiced today, but instead describes bloodletting.

See Imrie's Powerpoint presentation starting at slide 5: http://drspinello.com/altmed/acuvet/acuvet_files/frame.htm

You may need to use Internet Explorer. It didn't want to load the slides correctly for me in Firefox.

[HamdenRice]

22. How hard is it to make thin needles?

When I read Livingstone, I recall that when he encountered the Bakwena of what's now western South Africa, he found the chief, who also was an indigenous smith, drawing fine copper wire. People have been making sewing needles for not thousands, but tens of thousands of years. They may not have been as thin as modern needles, but the technology of making needles is older than written history.

Why are you grasping on to the view of this wackjob when all experts agree that acupuncture was described in the Huang Di Nei Jing? This is why I get the impression that so called "skeptics" tend to be fundamentalists (ie their belief system cannot be altered by facts) pretending to be scientists. Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangdi_Neijing

Huangdi Neijing

The first text, the Suwen (素問), also known as Basic Questions, covers the theoretical foundation of Chinese Medicine and its diagnostic methods. The second and generally less referred-to text, the Lingshu (靈樞) , discusses acupuncture therapy in great detail. Collectively, these two texts are known as the Neijing or Huangdi Neijing. In practice, however, the title Neijing often refers only to the more influential Suwen. Two other texts also carried the prefix Huangdi neijing in their titles: the Mingtang 明堂 <"Hall of Light"> and the Taisu 太素 <"Grand Basis">, both of which have survived only partially.

[trotsky]

26. Once more chance to understand.

From the wikipedia page:

The second and generally less referred-to text, the Lingshu (靈樞) , discusses acupuncture therapy in great detail.

It does. But does it discuss it as acupuncture is described today? Did it refer to qi as energy in the body? Did it identify the acupuncture points as popularized since 1939? Or was it more about using needles to bloodlet?

You want to accuse people who won't look at "facts" as "fundamentalists" - but YOU aren't looking at the facts here, HR. What are YOU?

[HamdenRice]

29. Talk about strawmen. Who said the practice can't change over 2000 years?

Here's the claim by the OP article:

"there is no historical record before 1939 of Qi and meridians being associated with acupuncture."

That's what you asked me to prove wrong.

I did.

Your position: Epic fail.

[trotsky]

35. We can agree that there was an epic fail on this thread.

However, it was not committed by me. Better luck next time, angry one.

[salvorhardin]

30. But did the ancient Chinese have the ability to make thin needles?

David Livingstone, in case you failed to realize it when you read him, explored Africa in the 19th Century, not ancient China.

[HamdenRice]

32. How thin is "thin"?

Of course I know when Livingstone explored Africa. What I'm saying is that it does not take vast technology to make "thin" needles. The Bakwena had very good indigenous metallurgy as do many cultures around the world with less sophistication than the Chinese.

The author seems to be saying that the needles weren't as thin as they are now, which is microthin. So what? I could probably make very, very thin needles from copper ore on my backyard webber grill using Bakwena technology if I had enough time to waste. I'm sure the Chinese had the capacity to make needles thin enough not to be excessively painful by a thousand years ago. They have had very advanced metallurgy for a very, very long time.

Hell, they've found Cro-Magnon sites with very thin needles made of bone and horn.

I don't get the OP article's argument about needles. It makes no sense.

[salvorhardin]

38. This thin

Fortunately we know how thin the Chinese were able to make needles dating back to the 2nd Century BC. From slides 35 - 37 of Dr. Imrie's Powerpoint presentation:

In the 1970's, four gold and five silver lancets were excavated from the tomb of Han Dynasty Prince, Liu Sheng (2nd Century BC), in Hebei Province. Acupuncture proponents have claimed that they are “acupuncture needles.”

Since these artifacts were found in association with other therapeutic instruments, they were presumably employed in therapeutic “needling” of some sort.

The precise nature of this “needling” remains unclear since “needles” were used in ancient China not only for what might now be construed as acupuncture, but for many other purposes, principally bloodletting and the lancing of various lesions.

The sheer diameter of these “needles” suggests they were not intended for “therapeutic twiddling.”

Needles made out of metals other than steel are either too soft or too brittle to effectively drive into tissues and then “twirl” in the manner of modern acupuncturists.

The fine needles employed by acupuncturists today can only be manufactured from drawn steel.

It’s worth noting that the requisite steel wire-drawing technology didn’t exist until about 400 years ago
http://drspinello.com/altmed/acuvet/acuvet_files/frame.htm

[HamdenRice]

40. I think the OP article is referring to steel technology

Note that the caption to the image mentions gold and silver needles. This is related to Livingstone's observation of the Bakwena.

Gold, silver and copper are the three easiest metals to "draw" (make into wire) and gold and silver are easy to make into ultra thin wire, or needles -- you just take wire, heat it to softness and pull it. They also melt at relatively low temperatures. The Bakwena chief Livingstone met was "drawing" copper wire.

Modern acupuncture uses stainless steel, which is much more recent, and the Chinese might not have had the technology to draw iron or steel into thin needles.

The use of steel would make the practice much, much cheaper. Maybe that's what the OP article was referring to.

[salvorhardin]

43. Now you're just being dense

This is the whole point. There is no evidence of acupuncture being an ancient Chinese medical practice. Nor is there capability simple because the ancient Chinese could not make needles thin enough for anything other than bloodletting or perhaps cauterization.

[HamdenRice]

46. "There is no evidence of acupuncture being an ancient Chinese medical practice"-huh???

The slide show you linked to says that westerners described acupuncture and translated the concept to the west in the 1500s.

I've given you cite after cite of acupuncture in ancient Chinese sources. Are you saying that the National Cancer Institute and Rheumatology, wiki and all the other sources, are wrong and the writer of the article is correct?

You seem to be saying that because the Chinese developed steel needles 400 years ago and were able to twirl the needles, acupuncture did not exist before that. Is that your point? And what relevance would that have to acupuncture being solely a 20th century phenomenon -- isn't that contradictory?

Who said Chinese acupuncture had to be perfectly static for 2000 years? That's illogical. You own sources say they were doing acupuncture with sharp gold needles.

Who's being intentionally dense here? It's pretty clear to see what your own sources (as well as mine) show: acupuncture is ancient; it is Chinese; it was done with needles; it was related to manipulating qi; it involved more than lancing boils.

Clearly the article in the OP is just wrong, in trying to say there was no acupuncture before 1939. It's also self contradictory because it seems to also being saying acupuncture dates back 400 years -- to steel needles. What exactly are you or the OP trying to argue? And I'm not trying to be dense; you are arguing several self contradictory points.

Maybe you could try to state positively what your claim is?

:shrug:

[Book Lover]

73. Quick note: ancient needles were made from bone n/t

[trotsky]

20. I'm so glad you stick around for the comedic value.

NIH source: dated 2006. There is no evidence on that page like I requested. Surely you understand that.

Oxford Journal: dated 2004. There is no evidence on that page like I requested, and in fact serves to reinforce what the OP said:

Documents discovered in the Ma-Wang-Dui tomb in China, which was sealed in 198 BCE, contain no reference to acupuncture as such <3>, but do refer to a system of meridians, albeit very different from the model that was accepted later

Google Books - There is no evidence in that book like I requested. The book you cite that references the other work does not contain any evidence indicating "qi" was established earlier than 1939.

Acupuncture.com. Again, no evidence that I requested.

Four strikes. Are you super-duper out? Or would you rather keep humiliating yourself further?

[HamdenRice]

23. This is why I don't waste time arguing with religious fundamentalists

including those whose "religion" is "pseudo scientific make believe skepticism."

If you cannot grasp that the sources identify Chinese documents that discuss acupuncture and qi before 1939, there is no hope for your reading comprehension.

[trotsky]

24. But they don't, HR.

No matter what you insist. Just like with the OP, you just aren't reading things closely.

I cannot correct that, just as I cannot correct your knee-jerk reaction to insult and call names whenever you can't argue a point.

[HamdenRice]

25. But they do. You seem not to be able to get the meaning of the texts

There's really not much more to say if you cannot read what those passages mean.

[trotsky]

28. They do not mean what you think they mean, HR.

Remember, we are not arguing that the WORDS "qi" or "acupuncture" (or their equivalents) weren't in use in ancient China. What's in dispute is whether they were used THEN as they are used TODAY by modern acupuncture scam artists. None of your documents or websites have established that.

As usual, you are arguing with strawmen, and then insulting them.

[HamdenRice]

34. No, they mean exactly what their authors intended them to mean

which is that the Chinese have been practicing acupuncture for long before 1939 based on the concept of qi.

[Orrex]

6. So far the replies include three testimonials and a knee-jerk attack on the writing

Sounds like the standard routine for the defense of nonsensical pseudoscience.

[trotsky]

8. But I have ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE!

And unlike EVUL Western Medicine, acupuncture cures! Which is why I keep going back over and over and over for further treatments. Uh, yeah.

[HamdenRice]

10. Once again, you seem not to understand anecdotal evidence and its role in science

but from past discussions, I realize it's not worth the effort trying to educate you on this matter.

[trotsky]

12. Well, one of us doesn't understand, that's for sure. n/t

[amitten]

41. When I'm thirsty I drink and I'm not thirsty anymore. Ancecdotal.

I don't need a study to prove it works.

And Western medicine is not evil, but it doesn't always work or we'd all be well all the time.

And my last long-standing medical problem was cured by only 4 visits to my acupuncturist, at a total cost of under $200. I was not encoraged to come back again and again, and I didn't need to. For the same medical problem, I had previously spent $3,000 with my MD and found no relief. And it's not because I didn't "believe" in my MD! And the acupuncture didn't work because I "believed" it would (actually, I went in skeptical). The acupuncture worked for me--I don't really care why because I'm just happy I'm out of pain and can work again.

Also, for some of us, alternative medicines are all we can afford anymore. And if they work, why knock them? Why be negative about something positive?

[salvorhardin]

44. You should make informed decisions

It's great that you found relief through acupuncture. However, that doesn't change the fact that acupuncture is being deceptively sold to the public based on a mythology largely constructed in the 20th Century West. It's not traditional Chinese medicine (traditional Chinese medicine is another myth, this time constructed by the Chinese government in the early 1950s). So if you decide to use acupuncture you should do so based on the actual evidence, and personal experience, not modern romanticized myths about ancient Chinese medicine.

[amitten]

48. I did make an informed decision. There are many valid studies

conducted by respected Western establishments that have validated the usefulness of acupuncture, and I have read those as well.

I appreciate the study you posted. However, my own experience has been different and I can happily say I have no "romanticized myths" that influenced me. I just want to be well, I am now, and it was inexpensive and pain-free (I couldn't even feel the needles). A painful condition diagnosed as chronic has gone away completely. That's all that matters to me. Matters more than all the studies combined, be they pro, con, or inconclusive.

I just wish that those of us who have been helped by alternative medicine could be treated as though we are something other than deluded or uninformed. Often, neither is true. I am a college graduate, a business owner, and a pretty smart cookie. I don't fall for snake oil.

[HamdenRice]

53. "a mythology largely constructed in the 20th Century West" -- huh???

I'm sitting here with a volume of Needham's classic multi-volume magnum opus, "Science and Civilization in China," to the left of my keyboard, and can't for the life of me figure out what on earth you are talking about.

China has had a medical tradition for over 2000 years -- long enough in my book to call it a tradition. That tradition contains certain intellectual components that are very similar and recognizable to our own; and some that aren't. Acupuncture is part of that tradition.

What I don't get is that if you're supposed to be a skeptic, how can you embrace one crank wingnut as the truth, when it contradicts virtually every single authoritative, academic description of that tradition.

This is why I conclude the "skeptic" movement is just a form of counter factual fundamentalism. It's impervious to facts.

[Orrex]

61. Clarify, please, since I don't have access to that volume

WHen you say

China has had a medical tradition for over 2000 years -- long enough in my book to call it a tradition. That tradition contains certain intellectual components that are very similar and recognizable to our own; and some that aren't. Acupuncture is part of that tradition.

Are you saying that acupuncture is explicitly stated to have originated over 2000 years ago? Or has the overall tradition itself--of which acupuncture is a part--been around for that long?

This is why I conclude the "skeptic" movement is just a form of counter factual fundamentalism. It's impervious to facts.

You're describing contrarianism, of course, which is nothing at all like true skepticism. Contrarianism, for instance, would reject any study that finds no evidence that qi exists as a form of energy, while embracing every personal testimonial that can be found on the subject.

I'm not accusing you of that latter error; I'm just using it as an on-topic example.

[HamdenRice]

67. This is why "skepticism" is the new "fundamentalism"

Among scholars and experts there is no controversy over the fact that acupuncture has been around since before 1939. Anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot. Sorry, but there are no more polite words for it that would adequately describe how preposterous that position is.

Sadly, there is this new "religion" called "skepticism." All you have to do is make a claim about some system of knowledge other than "western science," claim you are a "skeptic" and no matter how absurd, how counter-factual, or how bizarre your claim is, a cohort of fellow so called "skeptics" will sign on to your claim, and cling to it, no matter how idiotic. It's much worse than contrarianism; it's some form of fundamentalist magical thinking. That is what has happened in this thread. Of course, if you are low functioning intellectually even for a so called "skeptic", you can just engage in demented, hallucinatory ravings and heckling -- also evidenced in this thread.

Everyone (outside of DU's bizarre "skeptics" crowd) knows that Chinese medicine is ancient and has included acupuncture for a very long time indeed. But the OPer found some article by an idiot that says it is a 20th century invention, so the "fundamentalists" have to fall in line despite all evidence to the contrary. Look at the contortions of (il)logic that that crowd has gone through on this thread to disbelieve expert consensus and believe the crackpot.

It doesn't matter that you don't have Needham in front of you. You have many links and cites in this thread to the fact that forms of acupuncture have been around for over a thousand years. Heck, you have links and cites from the fundamentalists' own posts showing the same thing. Perhaps after the development of steel needles 400 years ago, the practitioners began spinning the needles. Who knows? I'm not sure why that "proves" that acupuncture as we know it is a 20th century fraud. I can no more understand what their "argument" is than I can understand the argument of the guy on the subway who claims the government is telling him what to do through radio signals picked up by his dental fillings; but that's not really my job.

I guess if you're a "skeptic" logic, consistency, historical evidence, etc. don't really matter.

[Orrex]

69. Tell you what: strip out all of the ad hominen bullshit and post what's left, if anything

Then I'll see about replying.

Otherwise, your post still nicely fits into the category I assigned your earlier post in my reply #6.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

81. "It appears to have been created in the 20th century"

Any evidence of this whatsoever -- other than the crackpot, self-discrediting, internally contradictory article cited in the OP that you cling to the way a bible thumper clings to his Leviticus?

No?

If you can read through the reams of evidence and still not grasp that the OP article is wrong, then it's not second grade debate tactics that characterize you -- it's second grade reading comprehension!

You have once again achieved "Black Knight" status in a discussion. Thanks for popping in as usual to provide the comic relief!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orrex]

91. He should have a blast!

They let you use those pointy scissors in 2nd grade. And actual glue instead of paste.

Good times!

[trotsky]

45. Too simplistic a comparison.

Nice try, though!

Somebody else says they are thirsty, they drank, and they got MORE thirsty. Their anecdotal evidence is just as good as yours, right? OK so the devil's in the details - that other person actually saltwater, while you drank freshwater. However I think the point is made.

Glad acupuncture "worked" for you. But this is not an attack on you - it's a study of evidence. And the evidence says, acupuncture is as effective as a placebo.

[amitten]

49. The key word being "effective". It works.

(That is a bad analogy with the saltwater, by the way. You've thrown in a second variable. Everyone who drinks the same fresh water will find the same relief--no studies needed--all anecdotal.)

If acupuncture works, it's valid, for reasons known or unknown. That's all I'm saying. Now if it never worked, or only rarely worked, there would be reason for concern.

If I had a friend who swears that her PMS is only cured by lighting 5 yellow candles on the 15th of each month, then I'd say great, do it! If it works, it doesn't matter why. I want everyone to be healthy and pain-free, by whatever means they choose.

[trotsky]

50. Yes, precisely!

(That is a bad analogy with the saltwater, by the way. You've thrown in a second variable. Everyone who drinks the same fresh water will find the same relief--no studies needed--all anecdotal.)

You've introduced MANY other variables, none of which are controlled in your anecdotal example.

Ah well, maybe someday you'll understand.

[amitten]

52. What other variables? n/t

[Celebration]

55. Doesn't matter!!

Stop drinking unsalted water now!! I've never seen a scientific study showing that it relieves thirst.
:sarcasm:

[trotsky]

57. Thank you - you're enhancing the illustration of my point.

Even you don't know the other variables - because that's precisely the point with anecdotal evidence. Variables are NOT identified, they're NOT isolated, and they're NOT controlled for. If you don't even know what else could be responsible for your symptom alleviation, how can anyone else reasonably draw any conclusions?

[amitten]

58. Hmm...maybe the treatment itself is actually responsible?

A novel idea!

[trotsky]

60. It just might be!

But you can't eliminate any other factor, either. Could be the drive to the acupuncturist. Could be the music they have playing. Could be their furnace failing, releasing CO into the building, just enough to relax you and relieve the pain. I think you are getting the point, but you just don't want to admit it.

[amitten]

63. That's true of ANY and all medical treatments, then.

Maybe that chemotherapy works on one and not another because of one of the vairables you listed.

That's the problem with variables. How many to consider? Where to draw the line? Maybe surgeries go better on Tuesdays than on Wednesdays. Maybe a person with a certain color of eyes fares better than another. You could do studies till the end of time with this logic.

However, sometimes common sense is the way to go. If there is obvious cause and effect, that is most likely the real answer.

[trotsky]

64. You betcha!

Which is why the primary function of clinical studies IS to identify those variables and control for them as much as possible. Anecdotal evidence does none of that, which is why it is inferior and must be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

That's the problem with variables. How many to consider? Where to draw the line? Maybe surgeries go better on Tuesdays than on Wednesdays. Maybe a person with a certain color of eyes fares better than another. You could do studies till the end of time with this logic.

Why is why that "logic" isn't used. But variables that can be controlled, are. That's the whole point - with anecdotal evidence you have NO strict variable control.

Ah well, you've made up your mind, I'm sorry to have tried to confuse you with facts.

[amitten]

86. Mayo Clinic. Not exactly a questionable source:

http://www.webmd.com/fibromyalgia/news/20050824/study-acupuncture-helps-fibromyalgia

[Orrex]

90. Please see reply #89 above (nt)

[conscious evolution]

157. So thats why chemotherapy failed with my friend

It was effected by his choice of music while he was releasing CO into buildings while driving to the Dr.s office.
You have got to be kidding me.Do you truly beleive the bullshit you are spouting?

[Orrex]

62. I know someone who underwent acupuncture and died within a week. Anecdotal.

Acupuncture is fatal!

:eyes:

True story about the guy, though...

[Celebration]

37. Some like to discredit everything

Debunking has emerged into some sort of belief system/art form/spewing. I refuse to feed them.

Some of us just like feeling better.

A *new* acupuncturist friend of mine is actually swamped with references from MDs. Their patients are reporting results and the MDs care not if it is a placebo effect or something else. They have happy patients that feel better. That's the bottom line.

[amitten]

39. If something works, use it. Who cares about studies?

You can find studies on almost any subject that contradict one another.

In the end, it's what works for the individual. It doesn't matter why or how.

[trotsky]

59. "Who cares about studies?"

A lot of people do. The people who want to ensure that the treatment that's MOST likely to work is the one that is tried first. Some health problems need to be addressed urgently. You can't do a "Let's try this first" approach - you might lose your patient before you get to the treatment that's right for them. This is why we do studies. This is why we insist on evidence instead of anecdotes. I am truly sorry that you (and others) want to bash and belittle those of us who take this approach instead of the "aw, just go with what works" happy-time approach to healthcare.

[Orrex]

112. Check out reply 109 to see who *doesn't* care about studies.

Not that you'll be surprised.

[groovedaddy]

83. I had carpal tunnel syndrom in my right wrist. I had gone to an acupuncturist

for relief from a sever migraine, which worked very well. The Doc showed me the pressure points to work in my forearm, hand and the "slot" in the center of the ridge of bone beneath the eyebrow. This was to prevent a migraine if I was getting aural displays. It works.
This Doc wanted to see me for three consecutive days for the migraine, but after 2 treatments, the migraine was completely gone, so on the third visit, I told him about my problem with carpal tunnel.
He gave me one treatment for it and the pain immediately subsided (it had not subsided with the treatment for the migraine, which seems to go against the "endorphin release" theory. The pain in my wrist, without any additional treatment, was gone for more than a month. That would not be the case if it were just endorphins.

[Sanity Claws]

88. It works

I have acupuncture regularly for migraine headaches. If acupuncture was purely placebo, why was it a better placebo than the pain relievers, which should also have resulted in a placebo effect?
I find it so interesting when a needle is inserted in one part of the body, and I feel it at a different point along the meridian.
Also, when I have presented with pain, I've had the doctor ask me whether I felt tender at a different point. Even though I had not mentioned it, the doctor was right; that other point was tender. They were different points along the same meridian.
As a westerner, I am unable to explain this stuff but know it works.