http://acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=31918

http://www.scribd.com/doc/192882/Tai-Chi-QigongEnergy-Scientific-Experimentation

Perhaps these bits of research may help enlighten the skeptical amongst us. A little typing in a search engine can go a long way.

If you have subjective sensations of ch’i within your body, you should believe, anyway. If you still don’t believe based on what others tell you, you cannot be persuaeded. In either case, I hope you enjoy!

Objectivity? I’m citing studies from reliable western sources. I’ve cited studies that show it both ways. I’m giving my opinions on some of the studies. Being that they are opinions, there will always be bias. Subtlety? Getting under skin? Of course it gets under my skin. I’ve seen Chinese medicine work time and time again but I’ve also seen it fail when used by idiots (and sometimes just fail, because, like western medicine, it doesn’t always work). I just get saddened when some people are deprived of this benefit because of news bias.

Thanks.

Yale School of Medicine! : http://qi-spot.com/2009/10/17/lend-me-your-ears-ear-acupuncture-for-back-pain-in-pregnant-women/

Tufts University School of Medicine: http://qi-spot.com/2009/11/07/tai-chi-helps-relieve-knee-arthritis-whats-new/

Please cite the particular bit of evidence you looked at and how it is biased. Thanks.

“the company that did the testing probably is in the work of acupuncture. You think they’re gonna release something that says anything EXCEPT “acupuncture works”?”

The “companies” being different clinical departments of various western medicine institutions, would not necessarily be biased towards or against acupuncture. There are kaboodles of studies from Chinese sources, but I prefer not to cite them precisely because of the bias.

I know what double blind means because I am an MD, an attending in a state university hospital and have conducted my own research (some not related to chinese medicine). I also know that I must reiterate one particular point:

Testing a pill with double blind is easy – sugar pill on one hand, real pill on another.

How do you do that with a procedure such as surgery? Especially procedures where the outcome is also dependent on practitioner skill?

That’s what acupuncture is, not just a pill, but a procedure dependent on practitioner skill.

If your criteria for judging if a study is biased or not is based on double-blindness, then we’ll never agree on anything. Also, we will definitely be arguing on what we define as “considerably”. “Considerably” is quite vague. Something can be considerable yet not statistically significant.

And last point, I am in the work of acupuncture and research, and I just blogged a couple of posts ago about how acupuncture DOESN’T work for persistent post-operative ileus. I am therefore not inclined to believe that you actually looked at the evidence I cited in this blog, as scanty as it is.

Thanks.

I looked at it.

It unfairly biases the data.

Also,

the company that did the testing probably is in the work of acupuncture. You think they’re gonna release something that says anything EXCEPT “acupuncture works”?

And by the way,

you said…

“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.”

YES. the surgeons CAN’T know. What do you think “double-blind” means?

In order for data to be considered accurate, and therefore prove acupuncture, it has to do two things…

1. be double-blind, so the data is unbiased.

2. the placebo group must show considerably less.

none of your studies do that effectively, and repeatedly.