Qi Spot

This columnist, probably looking for something to write about, basically bashes ancient knowledge in general and bases his argument for acupuncture not working on the lack of physical evidence for Qi. (http://www.kansan.com/news/2010/jan/25/folmsbee-no/)  Some wonder quotes:

However, when it comes to health, ancient wisdom fails to provide a true benefit, miring us instead in a failed tradition. The modern practice of acupuncture is the best example of such an unfortunate appeal to antiquity.

That is, if acupuncture appeals ONLY to antiquity.  Acupuncture appeals not to antiquity but to lasting effect.  A lot of things can appeal to antiquity such as demonology and incantations.  However, since those don’t work, they’ve died out.  Also, ancient wisdom says walking is the best form of exercise (Hippocrates).  Is it any wonder that the countries where people use cars to go to the other side of a street, people are generally obese?

Practitioners of this ideology claim to be able to treat a huge variety of illnesses this way, from headaches to infertility.

We don’t claim.  We do.  Backed up by evidence.  Google it.

Today, there is a clear lack of scientific evidence demonstrating the presence of such meridians, or even “qi” in general. This destroys any scientific plausibility for acupuncture, making its consideration a leap of faith

Firstly, let’s not use the word “clear.”  Clear to whom. Clear to you?  Not clear to everyone!  While the mechanics of Qi and meridian flow are still being studied, the efficacy if acupuncture is clearly demonstrated for many conditions (low back pain, headache, hormonal imbalances, among others) and not for others (color blindness, post operative ileus).

And Folmsbee follows this logic.  No clear evidence = no scientific plausibility = leap of faith.  Ergo we shouldn’t believe in many viruses because we don’t have “clear” evidence of them, just bits and pieces of RNA or DNA “attributed” to them.  We should not be taking lithium for bipolar disorder because there is no “clear” evidence of how it works.  For over fifty years we’ve taken aspirin for pain and only now are we realizing it is related to the COX inhibitors.  There’s no quantification for love or respect or any of those “unclear” concepts, but no one will be stupid enough to deny they exist.

Leap of faith?  I took migraine meds with some effect.  Acupuncture kept me migraine free for five years.  That’s not as good as a randomized double blind clinical trial, but it’s much more than a mere leap of faith.

Biomedical research has ventured to unprecedented depths. It has evaluated the function of organs on a cellular, biochemical, and even atomic level. In contrast, the philosophical grounds for acupuncture remain without scientific foundation. Acupuncture simply rests on an unobserved, unsupported, and unlikely phenomenon.

Yes, biomedical research has evaluated the functions of organs down to the molecular (not atomic) level (DUH).  However, they still can’t treat certain things like chinese medicine can.  If not, how can so many patients whose chronic rhinitis is untouchable by western med suddenly find relief with the right combination of spices plus acupuncture?  If that’s placebo effect, I’ll take it over drugs.

“Unobserved” he says.  The ancient Chinese  (and ancient peoples in general), not having newspapers, television, the internet, or a self-smug sense of superiority, were MASTERS of observation.  For example, they knew that kidney problems led to anemia.  In modern scientific parlance, they’d ask for proof.  We have that proof now with the discovery of erythropoeitin as a hormone produced by the kidney.  The ancient chinese simply said that The Kidneys nourish the marrow.  Without the benefit of modern technology!  Just plain, simple repeated and reproducible observations.

The ultimate question is whether acupuncture is truly effective in treating disease. The scientific attempt to answer this question, however, has proven complicated and difficult.

Since the practice of acupuncture claims an influence over the function of the entire body and offers treatment for a huge number of diseases, it is exceedingly challenging to pinpoint a single measure of acupuncture’s efficacy as representative of the practice as a whole.

Such variety has made it problematic to compare studies and standardize the data.

Furthermore, the actual procedure of inserting needles is extremely difficult to control.

Well this guy is not all bad.  He understands that we should study acupuncture as a procedure and not as a pill.  But he forgets one thing.  Even in Chinese medicine, acupuncture is known to be best for some conditions, not as good in others.  He’s already laying the groundwork for saying it doesn’t work for some, so it doesn’t work, period.  He wants to eventually ignore the evidence that shows WHERE acupuncture works.

In any clinical study, the practitioner should not know whether he or she is administering the true treatment or the placebo treatment, known as “blinding.” But, in the case of acupuncture, it is very clear to the acupuncturist (and often the patient) if they are asked to perform a sham treatment or no treatment at all.

This unfairly biases the data and has allowed for some smaller clinical studies to have falsely positive results, largely due to the placebo effect of the patient being offered a novel treatment.

In ANY clinical study he says.  So when we conduct studies on surgical procedures, the surgeons shouldn’t know if they’re doing the real thing or not.  Very very nice.

Despite these limitations, there have been some consistent results in the scientific research behind acupuncture. Particularly over the last few years, the controls for these studies have improved. This includes better sham procedures, more reliable practitioner blinding, and larger groups of patients to study.

In these well-controlled studies, the gap between the supposed effectiveness of the treatment and the placebo group has shrunk accordingly, leaving the two statistically indistinguishable. When put under scientific scrutiny, acupuncture was shown to be just an ineffective ideology.

Then name those studies.  Here in my blog I’ve named studies showing they’ve worked, named studies that show they haven’t.  You haven’t named any.  You just want us to take your word for it.  Oh wait, isn’t that the very leap of faith you hate so much?

Considering the recent flux of dependable data, it appears that acupuncture truly has little use in modern medicine today. Its philosophy is ancient, and while some translate that to mean “wise”, the truly wise know it to more accurately mean “outdated.”

So eating vegetables is also outdated, and so is covering up in the cold, and so is exercise.

Tags: Acupuncture, Research, Sai Folmsbee