Re: The Science of Acupuncture and Qi Gong alive and well.

[Guest guest]

If you look beyond the puff pieces the article below is a good example

of what you will find regarding scientific research of qi [in this case

qigong]:

..

..

>

> Abstract

>

> The objective of this chapter is to systematically review the evidence

> for the effectiveness of qigong in supportive cancer care. Fifteen

> databases were searched from inception through May 2009. Controlled

> trials testing qigong in patients with cancer of any origin that

> assessed clinical outcome measures were considered. The selection of

> studies, data extraction, and validations were performed independently

> by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria.

> Six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 non-randomized controlled

> clinical trials (CCTs) met our inclusion criteria. The six RCTs tested

> the effects of qigong as supportive cancer care compared with usual

> care or herbal medicine and showed no significant differences in most

> outcome measures. All of the 5 CCTs showed favourable effects of

> qigong. Two trials suggested effectiveness in prolonging life of

> cancer patients while one failed to do so. All of the CCTs had a high

> risk of bias. Collectively, the existing trial evidence does not show

> convincingly that qigong is effective for supportive cancer care.

> Future studies should be of high quality with a particular emphasis on

> designing an adequate control intervention.

..

..

It's located at <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4743j4x448r1157/>.

..

It seems to bother you that I indicated that I do not believe there is

much if anything scientific about qi or ying-yang and have said so.

Below is a rather typical discussion of it; again I don't see much of a

scientific nature there. Here's the link:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi>. And here's the quote:

..

..

>

> Heaven (seen here as the ultimate source of all being) falls (duo

> 墮, i.e., descends into proto-immanence) as the formless.

> Fleeting, fluttering, penetrating, amorphous it is, and so it is

> called the Supreme Luminary. The dao begins in the Void

> Brightening. The Void Brightening produces the universe (yu-zhou

> ). The universe produces qi. Qi has bounds. The clear, yang [qi]

> was ethereal and so formed heaven. The heavy, turbid [qi] was

> congealed and impeded and so formed earth. The conjunction of the

> clear, yang [qi] was fluid and easy. The conjunction of the heavy,

> turbid [qi] was strained and difficult. So heaven was formed first

> and earth was made fast later. The pervading essence (xi-jing) of

> heaven and earth becomes yin and yang. The concentrated (zhuan)

> essences of yin and yang become the four seasons. The dispersed

> (san) essences of the four seasons become the myriad creatures.

> The hot qi of yang in accumulating produces fire. The essence

> (jing) of the fire-qi becomes the sun. The cold qi of yin in

> accumulating produces water. The essence of the water-qi becomes

> the moon. The essences produced by coitus (yin) of the sun and

> moon become the stars and celestial markpoints (chen, planets).

> —Huai-nan-zi, 3:1a/19

>

..

..

I can't really see that as being scientific, however entertaining may be

the idea of coitus between the sun and moon creating the stars. Here's a

somewhat common definition of qi:

..

> **qi** - the circulating life energy that in Chinese philosophy is

> thought to be inherent in all things...

..

..

I do not see any reasonable way for science to evaluate the " life

energy " that a human has and a rock also has. They are both of course

composed of mass/energy but the ephemeral [or elusive] description above

and elsewhere does not seem to well correlate to mass/energy. OTOH

qigong is a martial arts exercise program and FAIK may be quite

effective... or not.

As for Chuck and I being the same person: That is highly complementary

to me but not to Chuck. I have no credentials in anything as I have

posted here many times [despite your false claim that I claim to be a

scientist] and no formal degrees beyond high school... Although I did go

to college for a couple of years. OTOH Chuck is a highly respected PhD

professor of physics at the University of Pittsburg in Kansas. He never

toots his own horn and probably doesn't appreciate it when I do it for

him [sorry, Chuck]. You can find his research interests and a list of

some of his professional publications here:

<http://www.pittstate.edu/department/physics/faculty/charles-c-blatchley.dot>.

You continue to imply that there are tons of scientists studying qi. If

you every run across even one peer reviewed article by even one of them

please provide a link.

As fro this statement:

..

> Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are tons of scientific

> evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy...

..

Neither Chuck nor I would " call it scientific proof " as we both know

there is no such animal. And since the evidence is anecdotal it most

certainly isn't scientific, as scientific research

excludes anecdotal evidence.

..

..

> Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20The%20Science%20of%20Acupuncture%20\

and%20Qi%20Gong%20alive%20and%20well%2E>

> khusha8 <khusha8>

>

>

> Sun May 15, 2011 10:37 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> /Chuck.

>

> Who cares if Einstein did not work a MIT and worked instead at

> Princeton... the fact remains that MIT is a very well respected

> institution.

>

> Chuck is this the best you can come up on the issue of MIT working

> with Gi Gong energy and finding great scientific importance in it?

> , in the mean time said Gi Gong had no place in a scientific

> discussion. Well so much for great knowledge and Chuck’

> s integrity.

>

> With all due respect you are both simply splitting hairs. As always

> all you do is find some inconsequential flaw to sidetrack and

> detract... your favorite strategy to bully members of this group.

>

> Today Acupuncture is supported by many well respected scientists in

> the medical field. And neither one of you will not touch this point.

>

> No matter what convoluted argument you spew out into this group the

> fact remains that Acupuncture has been practiced for thousands of year

> with great success. Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are

> tons of scientific evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy

> therapy do work. Look it up, there is much written by many scientist

> with millions of case studies to back it up, empirically so!.

[Guest guest]

,

 

You have one viewpoint and and Chuck have another, I come in somewhere in

the middle. None of this is bullying, it's just people stating their viewpoints.

Many scientists disagree on subjects as do theologians. I, for one, see no

problem with opposing viewpoints. If nothing else, they should be able to make

the others think

about things from a different perspective, whether or not they finally alter

their opinions.

 

We are all adults here and as such are entititled to our viewpoints. One is not

superior or " moe right " than another's. Millions of people believe in qi, and I,

personally, feel that whatever it's called that there is a life force in people.

There are many doctors who believe this too. Please note I'm talking about

belief, not proof.

 

As for allopathic medicine, there are people from countries all over the world

that come here for medical treatment that is just not available in their own

country, and many of them live much closer to other countries than the U. S., so

they believe our western form of medicine is better.

 

It makes no difference which side one is on or if one straddles both sides. The

fact is that we all want to be healthy, so whatever works is good.

 

Roni

From: <res075oh@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 5:52 AM

Subject: Re: The Science of Acupuncture and Qi Gong alive and

well.

If you look beyond the puff pieces the article below is a good example

of what you will find regarding scientific research of qi [in this case

qigong]:

..

..

>

>    Abstract

>

> The objective of this chapter is to systematically review the evidence

> for the effectiveness of qigong in supportive cancer care. Fifteen

> databases were searched from inception through May 2009. Controlled

> trials testing qigong in patients with cancer of any origin that

> assessed clinical outcome measures were considered. The selection of

> studies, data extraction, and validations were performed independently

> by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria.

> Six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 non-randomized controlled

> clinical trials (CCTs) met our inclusion criteria. The six RCTs tested

> the effects of qigong as supportive cancer care compared with usual

> care or herbal medicine and showed no significant differences in most

> outcome measures. All of the 5 CCTs showed favourable effects of

> qigong. Two trials suggested effectiveness in prolonging life of

> cancer patients while one failed to do so. All of the CCTs had a high

> risk of bias. Collectively, the existing trial evidence does not show

> convincingly that qigong is effective for supportive cancer care.

> Future studies should be of high quality with a particular emphasis on

> designing an adequate control intervention.

..

..

It's located at <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4743j4x448r1157/>.

..

It seems to bother you that I indicated that I do not believe there is

much if anything scientific about qi or ying-yang and have said so.

Below is a rather typical discussion of it; again I don't see much of a

scientific nature there. Here's the link:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi>. And here's the quote:

..

..

>

>    Heaven (seen here as the ultimate source of all being) falls (duo

>    墮, i.e., descends into proto-immanence) as the formless.

>    Fleeting, fluttering, penetrating, amorphous it is, and so it is

>    called the Supreme Luminary. The dao begins in the Void

>    Brightening. The Void Brightening produces the universe (yu-zhou

>    ). The universe produces qi. Qi has bounds. The clear, yang [qi]

>    was ethereal and so formed heaven. The heavy, turbid [qi] was

>    congealed and impeded and so formed earth. The conjunction of the

>    clear, yang [qi] was fluid and easy. The conjunction of the heavy,

>    turbid [qi] was strained and difficult. So heaven was formed first

>    and earth was made fast later. The pervading essence (xi-jing) of

>    heaven and earth becomes yin and yang. The concentrated (zhuan)

>    essences of yin and yang become the four seasons. The dispersed

>    (san) essences of the four seasons become the myriad creatures.

>    The hot qi of yang in accumulating produces fire. The essence

>    (jing) of the fire-qi becomes the sun. The cold qi of yin in

>    accumulating produces water. The essence of the water-qi becomes

>    the moon. The essences produced by coitus (yin) of the sun and

>    moon become the stars and celestial markpoints (chen, planets).

>    —Huai-nan-zi, 3:1a/19

>

..

..

I can't really see that as being scientific, however entertaining may be

the idea of coitus between the sun and moon creating the stars. Here's a

somewhat common definition of qi:

..

> **qi** - the circulating life energy that in Chinese philosophy is

> thought to be inherent in all things...

..

..

I do not see any reasonable way for science to evaluate the " life

energy " that a human has and a rock also has. They are both of course

composed of mass/energy but the ephemeral [or elusive] description above

and elsewhere does not seem to well correlate to mass/energy. OTOH

qigong is a martial arts exercise program and FAIK may be quite

effective... or not.

As for Chuck and I being the same person: That is highly complementary

to me but not to Chuck. I have no credentials in anything as I have

posted here many times [despite your false claim that I claim to be a

scientist] and no formal degrees beyond high school... Although I did go

to college for a couple of years. OTOH Chuck is a highly respected PhD

professor of physics at the University of Pittsburg in Kansas. He never

toots his own horn and probably doesn't appreciate it when I do it for

him [sorry, Chuck]. You can find his research interests and a list of

some of his professional publications here:

<http://www.pittstate.edu/department/physics/faculty/charles-c-blatchley.dot>.

You continue to imply that there are tons of scientists studying qi. If

you every run across even one peer reviewed article by even one of them

please provide a link.

As fro this statement:

..

> Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are tons of scientific

> evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy...

..

Neither Chuck nor I would " call it scientific proof " as we both know

there is no such animal. And since the evidence is anecdotal it most

certainly isn't scientific, as scientific research

excludes anecdotal evidence.

..

..

>      Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>     

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20The%20Science%20of%20Acupuncture%20\

and%20Qi%20Gong%20alive%20and%20well%2E>

>      khusha8 <khusha8>

>

>

>        Sun May 15, 2011 10:37 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> /Chuck.

>

> Who cares if Einstein did not work a MIT and worked instead at

> Princeton... the fact remains that MIT is a very well respected

> institution.

>

> Chuck is this the best you can come up on the issue of MIT working

> with Gi Gong energy and finding great scientific importance in it?

> , in the mean time said Gi Gong had no place in a scientific

> discussion. Well so much for great knowledge and Chuck’

> s integrity.

>

> With all due respect you are both simply splitting hairs. As always

> all you do is find some inconsequential flaw to sidetrack and

> detract... your favorite strategy to bully members of this group.

>

> Today Acupuncture is supported by many well respected scientists in

> the medical field. And neither one of you will not touch this point.

>

> No matter what convoluted argument you spew out into this group the

> fact remains that Acupuncture has been practiced for thousands of year

> with great success. Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are

> tons of scientific evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy

> therapy do work. Look it up, there is much written by many scientist

> with millions of case studies to back it up, empirically so!.

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

>

> ... Chuck is this the best you can come up on the issue of MIT working with Gi

Gong energy and finding great scientific importance in it?...

(Sigh) I figured it was not worth the effort. Anyone who could not recognize for

themselves the difference between this conference and actual refereed research

that could rest on the reputation of MIT is not going to understand my

explanation.

First, the only person cited with any scientific credentials was the biologist

who organized the event. There was not one medical researcher or physical

scientist (an expert in energy), although it was said to be attended by hundreds

of scientiest. Listed conferees were for the most part employees of the MIT

corporation, such as lab managers (Ms. Na An) and support people, not academics.

I could not find any of their names among the MIT faculty. Perhaps they were

temporary faculty at the time of the conference. Since the article did not

specify the biologist's academic rank, we cannot gage whether he had tenure or

even a tenurable position, which would have indicated the true support of the

MIT reputation. It is telling that the favorable comments from the two academic

deans came in letters to the conference, rather than personally delivered

remarks.

My current institution similarly has groups with interests in yoga, Tai Chi,

vegan cooking, sustainability, and environmentalism. The main requirement for

them to have a conference on campus is a representative who is employed by the

university. I have presented papers and panel discussions at such on-campus

conferences on nanotechnology, entrepreneurship, presentation technology, and

how to teach elementary science. None of these activities are peer reviewed

science nor do they rest on the reputation of the institution, such as it is,

although we almost always get a welcoming statement from a dean, provost, or

their representative.

BTW, I did my thesis research at an MIT facility, the Bates LINAC in Danvers, so

I have worked with many of their faculty and graduate students in physics.

Although MIT also has strong programs in biomedical engineering and biology,

they do not have a medical school. MIT's joint M.D./Ph.D. program relies for

completion on the Harvard Medical School.

Last July, MIT had a conference on Dynamic Walking. In 2003, they hosted the

10th international conference on cold fusion. In 1992, they even had a

conference on alien abductions.

Qi Gong remains unrecognized by science. It could turn out to be a real energy,

but right now, it is not science.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Qi is the energy. Qi Gong is the exercise, which is supposed to be good for the

heart among other things.

 

Roni

From: " gumboyaya@... " <gumboyaya@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:25 AM

Subject: Re: The Science of Acupuncture and Qi Gong alive and

well.

,

You wrote:

>

> ... Chuck is this the best you can come up on the issue of MIT working with Gi

Gong energy and finding great scientific importance in it?...

(Sigh) I figured it was not worth the effort. Anyone who could not recognize for

themselves the difference between this conference and actual refereed research

that could rest on the reputation of MIT is not going to understand my

explanation.

First, the only person cited with any scientific credentials was the biologist

who organized the event. There was not one medical researcher or physical

scientist (an expert in energy), although it was said to be attended by hundreds

of scientiest. Listed conferees were for the most part employees of the MIT

corporation, such as lab managers (Ms. Na An) and support people, not academics.

I could not find any of their names among the MIT faculty. Perhaps they were

temporary faculty at the time of the conference. Since the article did not

specify the biologist's academic rank, we cannot gage whether he had tenure or

even a tenurable position, which would have indicated the true support of the

MIT reputation. It is telling that the favorable comments from the two academic

deans came in letters to the conference, rather than personally delivered

remarks.

My current institution similarly has groups with interests in yoga, Tai Chi,

vegan cooking, sustainability, and environmentalism. The main requirement for

them to have a conference on campus is a representative who is employed by the

university. I have presented papers and panel discussions at such on-campus

conferences on nanotechnology, entrepreneurship, presentation technology, and

how to teach elementary science. None of these activities are peer reviewed

science nor do they rest on the reputation of the institution, such as it is,

although we almost always get a welcoming statement from a dean, provost, or

their representative.

BTW, I did my thesis research at an MIT facility, the Bates LINAC in Danvers, so

I have worked with many of their faculty and graduate students in physics.

Although MIT also has strong programs in biomedical engineering and biology,

they do not have a medical school. MIT's joint M.D./Ph.D. program relies for

completion on the Harvard Medical School.

Last July, MIT had a conference on Dynamic Walking. In 2003, they hosted the

10th international conference on cold fusion. In 1992, they even had a

conference on alien abductions.

Qi Gong remains unrecognized by science. It could turn out to be a real energy,

but right now, it is not science.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

That does not seem like a very large group for a scientific study?

[Guest guest]

FAIK qigong may be a great exercise program; I don't know much about

it. Qi may be some kind of energy/life force/humour/whatever but I

don't see any scientific support for that supposition.

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20The%20Science%20of%20Acupunctur\

e%20and%20Qi%20Gong%20alive%20and%20well%2E>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Mon May 16, 2011 11:54 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> Qi is the energy. Qi Gong is the exercise, which is supposed to be

> good for the heart among other things.

>

> Roni

[Guest guest]

I have no definitive answer for that. I was only making the distinction between

the two.

I know people that swear by these things, but I also know people who used it and

it didn't work. For example, Regis Philbin used qi gong, but ended up having to

have multiple bypass operations. One of my closest friends used it for years,

and ended up with the therapist telling her the accupuncture and exercises

weren't doing anything for her.

 

I also have no definitive answer for the allopathic medicines and devices

that DO have scientific support and end up killing people (which has been

documented in the news time and time again). OTOH, some people use the medicines

and devices and have great success with them

 

 Nothing is to be deemed safe and efficacious no matter from where it comes IMO.

 

Roni

From: <res075oh@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:22 AM

Subject: Re: The Science of Acupuncture and Qi Gong alive and

well.

FAIK qigong may be a great exercise program; I don't know much about

it.  Qi may be some kind of energy/life force/humour/whatever but I

don't see any scientific support for that supposition.

..

..

>      Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>     

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20The%20Science%20of%20Acupunctur\

e%20and%20Qi%20Gong%20alive%20and%20well%2E>

>      matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

>        Mon May 16, 2011 11:54 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> Qi is the energy. Qi Gong is the exercise, which is supposed to be

> good for the heart among other things.

>

> Roni

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

, Chuck, Roni...

This thread started when I congratulated someone who posted success with

Acupuncture and responded to my post with " you have very little scientific

knowledge " .

That does not sound so adult or encouraging for a reasonable discussion, that is

bulling.

Further more at no point in this " discussion " of the merits of Acupuncture have

(nor Chuck) address the point that Acupuncture has been practiced

successfully for thousands of years involving millions of patients and doctors

and today it is practiced in some of the most respectable medical institutions.

I said they will not touch this point and the have not and will not.

I'm not here to teach science to anyone, I am not a scientists. How ever I do

not have to be one to know that Acupuncture does work.

I don't have to know how a plane flies to know that it does fly.

Everything I've said about (and Chuck's) tactics remain reinforced by each

reply from them. Picking at the edges, argumentatively avoiding the main point.

On the other hand, the amount of energy spent in calling something " a science "

or not is simply not worth the point. There are plenty of things that are

called science but simply do not cure anyone, never did and never will.

The fact remains that Acupuncture does cure. And science be damned.

So Roni, yes, all that matters at the end is to gain better health. I know I

did... call it what you will.

PS: Yes I know the difference between Chi(Qi) and QiGong... I was reffering to

a study and an article. Any more trivial comments to avoid the issue at hand?

I hope not because I just got bored.

Hey and Chuck. Please do not go and have acupuncture, keep taking science

based pills.

>

> If you look beyond the puff pieces the article below is a good example

> of what you will find regarding scientific research of qi [in this case

> qigong]:

> .

> .

>

> >

> > Abstract

> >

> > The objective of this chapter is to systematically review the evidence

> > for the effectiveness of qigong in supportive cancer care. Fifteen

> > databases were searched from inception through May 2009. Controlled

> > trials testing qigong in patients with cancer of any origin that

> > assessed clinical outcome measures were considered. The selection of

> > studies, data extraction, and validations were performed independently

> > by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria.

> > Six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 non-randomized controlled

> > clinical trials (CCTs) met our inclusion criteria. The six RCTs tested

> > the effects of qigong as supportive cancer care compared with usual

> > care or herbal medicine and showed no significant differences in most

> > outcome measures. All of the 5 CCTs showed favourable effects of

> > qigong. Two trials suggested effectiveness in prolonging life of

> > cancer patients while one failed to do so. All of the CCTs had a high

> > risk of bias. Collectively, the existing trial evidence does not show

> > convincingly that qigong is effective for supportive cancer care.

> > Future studies should be of high quality with a particular emphasis on

> > designing an adequate control intervention.

> .

> .

> It's located at <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4743j4x448r1157/>.

> .

>

> It seems to bother you that I indicated that I do not believe there is

> much if anything scientific about qi or ying-yang and have said so.

> Below is a rather typical discussion of it; again I don't see much of a

> scientific nature there. Here's the link:

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi>. And here's the quote:

> .

> .

> >

> > Heaven (seen here as the ultimate source of all being) falls (duo

> > 墮, i.e., descends into proto-immanence) as the formless.

> > Fleeting, fluttering, penetrating, amorphous it is, and so it is

> > called the Supreme Luminary. The dao begins in the Void

> > Brightening. The Void Brightening produces the universe (yu-zhou

> > ). The universe produces qi. Qi has bounds. The clear, yang [qi]

> > was ethereal and so formed heaven. The heavy, turbid [qi] was

> > congealed and impeded and so formed earth. The conjunction of the

> > clear, yang [qi] was fluid and easy. The conjunction of the heavy,

> > turbid [qi] was strained and difficult. So heaven was formed first

> > and earth was made fast later. The pervading essence (xi-jing) of

> > heaven and earth becomes yin and yang. The concentrated (zhuan)

> > essences of yin and yang become the four seasons. The dispersed

> > (san) essences of the four seasons become the myriad creatures.

> > The hot qi of yang in accumulating produces fire. The essence

> > (jing) of the fire-qi becomes the sun. The cold qi of yin in

> > accumulating produces water. The essence of the water-qi becomes

> > the moon. The essences produced by coitus (yin) of the sun and

> > moon become the stars and celestial markpoints (chen, planets).

> > †" Huai-nan-zi, 3:1a/19

> >

> .

> .

> I can't really see that as being scientific, however entertaining may be

> the idea of coitus between the sun and moon creating the stars. Here's a

> somewhat common definition of qi:

> .

> > **qi** - the circulating life energy that in Chinese philosophy is

> > thought to be inherent in all things...

> .

> .

> I do not see any reasonable way for science to evaluate the " life

> energy " that a human has and a rock also has. They are both of course

> composed of mass/energy but the ephemeral [or elusive] description above

> and elsewhere does not seem to well correlate to mass/energy. OTOH

> qigong is a martial arts exercise program and FAIK may be quite

> effective... or not.

>

> As for Chuck and I being the same person: That is highly complementary

> to me but not to Chuck. I have no credentials in anything as I have

> posted here many times [despite your false claim that I claim to be a

> scientist] and no formal degrees beyond high school... Although I did go

> to college for a couple of years. OTOH Chuck is a highly respected PhD

> professor of physics at the University of Pittsburg in Kansas. He never

> toots his own horn and probably doesn't appreciate it when I do it for

> him [sorry, Chuck]. You can find his research interests and a list of

> some of his professional publications here:

> <http://www.pittstate.edu/department/physics/faculty/charles-c-blatchley.dot>.

>

> You continue to imply that there are tons of scientists studying qi. If

> you every run across even one peer reviewed article by even one of them

> please provide a link.

>

> As fro this statement:

> .

>

> > Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are tons of scientific

> > evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy...

> .

> Neither Chuck nor I would " call it scientific proof " as we both know

> there is no such animal. And since the evidence is anecdotal it most

> certainly isn't scientific, as scientific research

> excludes anecdotal evidence.

>

>

>

> .

> .

>

>

>

>

>

> > Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

> >

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20The%20Science%20of%20Acupuncture%20and%20\

Qi%20Gong%20alive%20and%20well%2E>

> > khusha8 <khusha8>

> >

> >

> > Sun May 15, 2011 10:37 am (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > /Chuck.

> >

> > Who cares if Einstein did not work a MIT and worked instead at

> > Princeton... the fact remains that MIT is a very well respected

> > institution.

> >

> > Chuck is this the best you can come up on the issue of MIT working

> > with Gi Gong energy and finding great scientific importance in it?

> > , in the mean time said Gi Gong had no place in a scientific

> > discussion. Well so much for great knowledge and Chuck’

> > s integrity.

> >

> > With all due respect you are both simply splitting hairs. As always

> > all you do is find some inconsequential flaw to sidetrack and

> > detract... your favorite strategy to bully members of this group.

> >

> > Today Acupuncture is supported by many well respected scientists in

> > the medical field. And neither one of you will not touch this point.

> >

> > No matter what convoluted argument you spew out into this group the

> > fact remains that Acupuncture has been practiced for thousands of year

> > with great success. Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are

> > tons of scientific evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy

> > therapy do work. Look it up, there is much written by many scientist

> > with millions of case studies to back it up, empirically so!.

>

[Guest guest]

> Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20The%20Science%20of%20Acupuncture%20\

and%20Qi%20Gong%20alive%20and%20well%2E>

> khusha8 <khusha8>

>

>

> Tue May 17, 2011 3:01 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> , Chuck, Roni...

>

> This thread started when I congratulated someone who posted success

> with Acupuncture and responded to my post with " you have very

> little scientific knowledge " .

..

..

Actually, what I posted was:

..

Hi, . You appear to know very little about science and some of your

statements are not accurate. For future reference please allow me to

suggest a couple of corrections.

..

If you keep posting references to " scientific proof " [which does not

exist] and " science of acupuncture " [when science is not involved, no

matter how effective {or not} it may be] it seems fairly obvious that

you don't know much about science. Then you understand so poorly [or not

at all] that science cannot provide absolute proof that the Earth is

spherical that you laugh at the notion. Of course any idiot knows the

Earth is round; however the methods that would be required for a

scientific proof are so draconian that scientists cannot " prove " the

theory that the Earth is round. There is always a weak link in the chain

that means absolute scientific proof for a theory is impossible.

..

..

>

> That does not sound so adult or encouraging for a reasonable

> discussion, that is bulling.

..

..

I suppose you mean " bullying " . Sorry; not guilty. Most of the quotes

that you attributed to me were totally false. When I say that there is

no scientific support for the effacy of acupuncture or the existence of

qi you change my words to the nature of something suggesting I have

stated there is scientific proof that they are bogus. Since there is no

such thing as scientific proof that is not something I'm likely to say.

If I say there is no scientific support for either then anyone

knowledgeable in science knows that is a correct statement while someone

not knowledgeable in science may not understand it. It appears you are

not in the former group.

..

..

>

> Further more at no point in this " discussion " of the merits of

> Acupuncture have (nor Chuck) address the point that Acupuncture

> has been practiced successfully for thousands of years involving

> millions of patients and doctors and today it is practiced in some of

> the most respectable medical institutions. I said they will not touch

> this point and the have not and will not.

..

..

AFAIK the statement is MOL accurate so why should I address it? It does

however somewhat depend upon your meaning of the word " successfully " .

OTOH if you mean that it has been shown to be more effective than chance

or placebo in controlled studies that is not correct. If you mean there

is immense anecdotal evidence that thousands [at least] have attested to

its effacy then that is AFAIK correct. If you DO have any knowledge of

the scientific method then you know that such anecdotal evidence has no

value in scientific research and would not provide any scientific

support for acupuncture.

..

..

>

> I'm not here to teach science to anyone, I am not a scientists.

..

..

I'm not a scientist either; I just happen to have a fairly good lay

knowledge of the basics. You have made quite a number of statements

about science that are inaccurate and you respond with anger, misquotes

and attacks when I point out the inaccuracies. You call it bullying when

there is no personal attack on you involved.

..

..

> How ever I do not have to be one to know that Acupuncture does work.

..

..

Whatever support there is that it works is not of a scientific nature.

Some of the supporting evidence given for its effacy presents principles

that are not supported by any field of science and other descriptions

flatly contradict some of the most basic elements of science. Therefore

I am of the opinion that it is bogus. What you have given above as an

absolute fact is actually an opinion also. The evidence upon which that

opinion is based is obviously compelling to you; it really isn't

compelling at all to anyone knowledgeable in science.

..

..

>

> I don't have to know how a plane flies to know that it does fly.

>

> Everything I've said about (and Chuck's) tactics remain

> reinforced by each reply from them. Picking at the edges,

> argumentatively avoiding the main point.

..

..

My point is that there is no scientific support for the effacy of

acupuncture or the existence of qi. That is a fact that might be of use

to some people when they are trying to decide what course of action to

follow; it obviously would be of no value to you. I present it gratis

for anyone to use who wants to and I expect it to be ignored by anyone

who does not want to utilize it. And sometimes I expect it to be

ridiculed by someone who does not understand even basic science.

..

..

>

> On the other hand, the amount of energy spent in calling something " a

> science " or not is simply not worth the point. There are plenty of

> things that are called science but simply do not cure anyone, never

> did and never will.

..

..

I'm sure that there is no one on the list so ignorant that they expect

to be cured by the science of cosmology.

..

..

>

> The fact remains that Acupuncture does cure. And science be damned.

..

..

That's an opinion, not a " fact " . Even if it were 100% true it would

still be an opinion and not a fact. Just as my opinion that acupuncture

and qi are bogus are opinions and not facts. You believe that the

evidence [ " facts " ] upon which you base your opinion to have merit while

I am less than impressed. I believe the evidence upon which I base my

opinions are well founded but not only are you not impressed you don't

comprehend their nature.

Absolute facts are far more elusive than you imagine or probably than

you can imagine. It would be helpful if you could give some thought to

the nature of and the difference between opinions and " facts " .

PS: I take T4 only and have no symptoms so it is likely I will continue.

That appears to be the case for the vast majority of hypo patients.

..

..

>

> So Roni, yes, all that matters at the end is to gain better health. I

> know I did... call it what you will.

>

>

>

> PS: Yes I know the difference between Chi(Qi) and QiGong... I was

> reffering to a study and an article. Any more trivial comments to

> avoid the issue at hand? I hope not because I just got bored.

>

> Hey and Chuck. Please do not go and have acupuncture, keep

> taking science based pills.

>

>

> >

> > If you look beyond the puff pieces the article below is a good example

> > of what you will find regarding scientific research of qi [in this case

> > qigong]:

> > .

> > .

> >

> > >

> > > Abstract

> > >

> > > The objective of this chapter is to systematically review the

> evidence

> > > for the effectiveness of qigong in supportive cancer care. Fifteen

> > > databases were searched from inception through May 2009. Controlled

> > > trials testing qigong in patients with cancer of any origin that

> > > assessed clinical outcome measures were considered. The selection of

> > > studies, data extraction, and validations were performed

> independently

> > > by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria.

> > > Six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 5 non-randomized controlled

> > > clinical trials (CCTs) met our inclusion criteria. The six RCTs

> tested

> > > the effects of qigong as supportive cancer care compared with usual

> > > care or herbal medicine and showed no significant differences in most

> > > outcome measures. All of the 5 CCTs showed favourable effects of

> > > qigong. Two trials suggested effectiveness in prolonging life of

> > > cancer patients while one failed to do so. All of the CCTs had a high

> > > risk of bias. Collectively, the existing trial evidence does not show

> > > convincingly that qigong is effective for supportive cancer care.

> > > Future studies should be of high quality with a particular

> emphasis on

> > > designing an adequate control intervention.

> > .

> > .

> > It's located at

> <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4743j4x448r1157/

> <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4743j4x448r1157/>>.

> > .

> >

> > It seems to bother you that I indicated that I do not believe there is

> > much if anything scientific about qi or ying-yang and have said so.

> > Below is a rather typical discussion of it; again I don't see much of a

> > scientific nature there. Here's the link:

> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi>>.

> And here's the quote:

> > .

> > .

> > >

> > > Heaven (seen here as the ultimate source of all being) falls (duo

> > > 墮, i.e., descends into proto-immanence) as the formless.

> > > Fleeting, fluttering, penetrating, amorphous it is, and so it is

> > > called the Supreme Luminary. The dao begins in the Void

> > > Brightening. The Void Brightening produces the universe (yu-zhou

> > > ). The universe produces qi. Qi has bounds. The clear, yang [qi]

> > > was ethereal and so formed heaven. The heavy, turbid [qi] was

> > > congealed and impeded and so formed earth. The conjunction of the

> > > clear, yang [qi] was fluid and easy. The conjunction of the heavy,

> > > turbid [qi] was strained and difficult. So heaven was formed first

> > > and earth was made fast later. The pervading essence (xi-jing) of

> > > heaven and earth becomes yin and yang. The concentrated (zhuan)

> > > essences of yin and yang become the four seasons. The dispersed

> > > (san) essences of the four seasons become the myriad creatures.

> > > The hot qi of yang in accumulating produces fire. The essence

> > > (jing) of the fire-qi becomes the sun. The cold qi of yin in

> > > accumulating produces water. The essence of the water-qi becomes

> > > the moon. The essences produced by coitus (yin) of the sun and

> > > moon become the stars and celestial markpoints (chen, planets).

> > > †" Huai-nan-zi, 3:1a/19

> > >

> > .

> > .

> > I can't really see that as being scientific, however entertaining

> may be

> > the idea of coitus between the sun and moon creating the stars.

> Here's a

> > somewhat common definition of qi:

> > .

> > > **qi** - the circulating life energy that in Chinese philosophy is

> > > thought to be inherent in all things...

> > .

> > .

> > I do not see any reasonable way for science to evaluate the " life

> > energy " that a human has and a rock also has. They are both of course

> > composed of mass/energy but the ephemeral [or elusive] description

> above

> > and elsewhere does not seem to well correlate to mass/energy. OTOH

> > qigong is a martial arts exercise program and FAIK may be quite

> > effective... or not.

> >

> > As for Chuck and I being the same person: That is highly complementary

> > to me but not to Chuck. I have no credentials in anything as I have

> > posted here many times [despite your false claim that I claim to be a

> > scientist] and no formal degrees beyond high school... Although I

> did go

> > to college for a couple of years. OTOH Chuck is a highly respected PhD

> > professor of physics at the University of Pittsburg in Kansas. He never

> > toots his own horn and probably doesn't appreciate it when I do it for

> > him [sorry, Chuck]. You can find his research interests and a list of

> > some of his professional publications here:

> >

> <http://www.pittstate.edu/department/physics/faculty/charles-c-blatchley.dot

>

<http://www.pittstate.edu/department/physics/faculty/charles-c-blatchley.dot>>.

> >

> > You continue to imply that there are tons of scientists studying qi. If

> > you every run across even one peer reviewed article by even one of them

> > please provide a link.

> >

> > As fro this statement:

> > .

> >

> > > Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are tons of scientific

> > > evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy...

> > .

> > Neither Chuck nor I would " call it scientific proof " as we both know

> > there is no such animal. And since the evidence is anecdotal it most

> > certainly isn't scientific, as scientific research

> > excludes anecdotal evidence.

> >

> >

> >

> > .

> > .

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

> > >

>

<mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20The%20Science%20of%20Acupuncture%20and%20\

Qi%20Gong%20alive%20and%20well%2E>

> > > khusha8 <khusha8

> <khusha8>>

> > >

> > >

> > > Sun May 15, 2011 10:37 am (PDT)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > /Chuck.

> > >

> > > Who cares if Einstein did not work a MIT and worked instead at

> > > Princeton... the fact remains that MIT is a very well respected

> > > institution.

> > >

> > > Chuck is this the best you can come up on the issue of MIT working

> > > with Gi Gong energy and finding great scientific importance in it?

> > > , in the mean time said Gi Gong had no place in a scientific

> > > discussion. Well so much for great knowledge and Chuck’

> > > s integrity.

> > >

> > > With all due respect you are both simply splitting hairs. As always

> > > all you do is find some inconsequential flaw to sidetrack and

> > > detract... your favorite strategy to bully members of this group.

> > >

> > > Today Acupuncture is supported by many well respected scientists in

> > > the medical field. And neither one of you will not touch this point.

> > >

> > > No matter what convoluted argument you spew out into this group the

> > > fact remains that Acupuncture has been practiced for thousands of

> year

> > > with great success. Call it scientific proof or not Chuck, there are

> > > tons of scientific evidence that Acupuncture AND Qi Gong energy

> > > therapy do work. Look it up, there is much written by many scientist

> > > with millions of case studies to back it up, empirically so!.

> >

..

..

> Hi, . You appear to know very little about science and some of

> your statements are not accurate. For future reference please allow me

> to suggest a couple of corrections.

>

> First, " scientific proof " . It doesn't exist. Scientists never prove

> any theory; they only provide evidence in support. We cannot even

> " prove " [in the strict scientific meaning of " proof " ] that the Earth

> is [MOL] spherical rather than flat. A theory is considered disproved

> if even one counter example is found; but NEVER " proved " . That's one

> of the reasons you may see a scientist wince when a creationist

> attacks evolution by saying, " Evolution is just a theory; it has never

> been proved " . It's completely true that it has never been proved, as

> no theory ever has.

>

> As for acupuncture, what you are calling " proof " is actually in your

> view " very strong supporting evidence " for its effacy. Unfortunately

> what you consider " very strong supporting evidence " [and call

> " proof " ] is neither. It is rather anecdotal evidence, which has

> virtually no value in supporting any scientific proposition.

>

> Please see more below...

> .

> .

>

>

>> Posted by: " maria p " khusha8@...

>> <mailto:khusha8@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20new%20numbers>

>> khusha8 <khusha8>

>>

>>

>> Mon May 9, 2011 9:53 am (PDT)

>>

>>

>>

>> Hey " ledbyrain " .

>>

>> It is great that you are getting such great results with your current

>> treatment and it is not unusual that you're improvement has been so

>> quick. Ask anyone who uses acupuncture and you will find a high rate

>> of similar stories.

> .

> .

> You will find a ton of adherents to any quack remedy you can name. If

> you don't believe that then just pick something you consider to be a

> total hoax and do a Google search on it. Almost without exception

> every con artist out there will have readily available a list of

> testimonials for you to peruse.

> .

> .

>>

>> Acupuncture is very effective treating many diseases although is

>> being blindly ignored by those who say it does not work because there

>> is no scientific proof. Denouncing acupuncture using what sounds like

>> scientific language should not detract from the proof provided by

>> millions of patients though thousand of years.

> .

> .

> Again, you use the word " proof " very loosely. That's okay; but then

> when you connect the word " proof " to the word " scientific " your

> statement becomes inaccurate. In everyday expression more than likely

> you and I will consider it " proved " that the Earth is round rather

> than flat. But it isn't " scientifically proved " . Further: To state

> " There is no credible scientific evidence in support " of something

> does not mean it does not work. It means exactly what it says:

> Scientific support is lacking. When we get beyond that we come to our

> opinions. Mine is that since there is not only no credible scientific

> support for the effacy of acupuncture but the methods by which it is

> purported to work are flatly contradicted by the best science we have

> AND that it has failed to show benefit above chance or placebo in the

> credible research that has been undertaken there is no valid reason to

> suggest that it works as advertised. You come to a different opinion

> for different reasons. There is no " proof " that either of us is correct.

> .

> .

>>

>> Scientific proof is something very elastic and it is often applied by

>> some in a very biased way. Since lots of what we hear to be

>> " scientific proof " is funded by pharmaceutical companies then

>> anything that does not lead to them making " drug sales " is labeled by

>> them as " unscientific " .

> .

> .

> IMHO some of the supporting evidence provided by pharmaceutical

> companies does not pass the smell test, much less any kind of

> scientific test. But again, " scientific proof " is not involved.

> .

> .

>>

>> Just because some do not understand how the science of acupuncture

>> works does not mean acupuncture does not work. Millions of people

>> during thousand of years can not be mistaken, it would be totally

>> unscientific to say so.

> .

> .

> One of the main reasons to suspect that acupuncture does not work as

> advertised is that at least some of us DO understand enough of science

> to know that it cannot possibly work on the principles described, and

> for a simple reason: They are totally bogus. ly, the term

> " science of acupuncture " is an oxymoron. Even if it works it is not

> science.

> .

> .

>>

>> There is a large amount of evidence supporting alternative medicine

>> successful treatment of many diseases and there is also mountains of

>> evidence showing that allopathic medicine sometimes fails to cure

>> many diseases and just simply over medicates with detrimental results

>> to their patients. This is a scientific fact.

> .

> .

> Absolute facts are a little more elusive than you imagine. Even to

> scientists. And all of the supporting evidence for acupuncture is

> anecdotal while every credible scientific effort to confirm its effacy

> has failed to provide benefits above chance or placebo. And the logic

> of supporting the effacy of one method of healing with an argument

> that another method of healing is not totally beneficial is logically

> ridiculous.

> .

> .

>>

>> There are lots of respected medical doctors and medical institutions

>> who approve and use acupuncture with great results. Most major

>> hospitals have acupuncture services today, including The Mayo Clinic.

> .

> .

> Sure, and insurance companies [sometimes, at least] pay for it. You

> don't suppose that the fact that it is often far less expensive than

> actual effective treatment has anything to do with that do you?

> .

> .

>>

>> I'm very glad that you are getting such good results with

>> acupuncture. I had acupuncture treatments many years ago to get rid

>> of asthma with great results. Like anything else, having a good

>> acupuncturist is key. Unfortunately where I live now I don't have a

>> good one, however not having a good acupuncturist led me to look and

>> find a great homeopath who has helped me tremendously.

>>

>> If it is working for you as it has worked for many others, that is

>> enough to suggest that you should continue your path.

>>

>> I find it reprehensible that every time someone posts on getting good

>> results with any alternative medical treatment on this Hypothyroidism

>> group the same couple of members have to say " there is no scientific

>> proof " regardless of the fact that a consistent rate of successful

>> treatmens by any protocol consists of plenty of scientific proof.

>> Good science does not ignore the evidence.

> .

> .

> Good science doesn't ignore credible evidence. Good science ignores

> anecdotal evidence in credible research, and for very good reasons.

> Reported beneficial results may create " proof " in your world view but

> that view has little acquaintance with science. That doesn't mean

> they're wrong; just what it says: There's no scientific support.

> .

> .

>>

>> To deny people of a chance of improving their health by means of

>> biased information that condemns them to a life of taking pills which

>> in many cases do not cure them and only causes more problems is

>> absolutely shameful.

> .

> .

> No one is denied a chance to improve their health. Everyone here is

> allowed to follow any healing regimen they desire. I do deny you the

> right to distort the meaning of words and to present false " facts "

> about science which are so clearly based upon a lack of knowledge of

> same. If you post something here, and especially if you recommend [or

> " prescribe " ] it to others and it not only has no scientific support in

> credible research but flatly contradicts the most basic tenants of

> physics and science you should not be surprised if someone points out

> those facts.

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you need help and support because you are suffering with a

thyroid/adrenal problem, or any of the associated conditions, and you

don't need/want, 'off topic' lectures, and you would like to be able

to read the next message without having to scroll through practically a

whole 'Digest' of previous messages, you are very welcome to join

thyroid treatment

<thyroid treatment>

Sheila

www.tpa-uk.org.uk <http://www.tpa-uk.org.uk>

> .

> Hi, . You appear to know very little about science and some of

your

> statements are not accurate. For future reference please allow me to

> suggest a couple of corrections.

> .

> If you keep posting references to " scientific proof " [which does not

> exist] and " science of acupuncture " [when science is not involved, no

> matter how effective {or not} it may be] it seems fairly obvious that

> you don't know much about science. Then you understand so poorly [or

not

> at all] that science cannot provide absolute proof that the Earth is

> spherical that you laugh at the notion.