Point taken, maybe I'm outside my limits posting a rebuttal that is not my own without any explanation of what it was about the rebuttal I liked. It was a while ago that someone posted a link to the abstract on facebook and I read it and showed it to my skeptic friend who showed me this rebuttal article.
Since I don't subscribe to the service where the abstract was puplished I can't read the original in detail. I got more detail of the original study in the rebuttal than the abstract, which summarizes a few problems with the study. It's been a while since I read the rebuttal but I thought other posters here might find it enlightening on the scientific study that supposedly reaffirms acupuncture.
I won't go into great detail for now about what I thought was most important in it, but the two points that I still remember well are that the study is not examining acupuncture as it claims. Pins weren't inserted in specific meridians, (if they can be identified in mice at all), being poked with needles is not acupuncture unless its done in specific locations.
The other point that I found most profound was how the injection of A1 receptor agonists could be studied in search of new methods to treat pain and neuro-muscular disorders, but the author instead decides to have tunnel vision for acupuncture in her discussion and conclusion.
Now that I'm done that, I'll leave the acupuncture discussion in hopes that this thread gets derailed into chi fireballs and no touch knockouts. I don't feel qualified to discuss the science of these particular papers anymore due to my inexperience with A1 receptor agonists and other biological mechanisms that are beyond my intermediate (or beginner by bullshido standards) understanding of the human body.
Acupuncturist / Anesthesia Student
I appreciate both ya'ls replies.
Without really getting too much into it, some of my first impressions of the original article are:
1. I understand it is probably easier to control variables but...mice?
2. Do acupuncture points work on mice? Supposedly they work on larger mammals but mice?
3. Why use a 40 gauge needle on a mouse?
4. I do like that the control group was needled at ST36 but without manipulation. In addition, ST36 is a great point to use for mechanistic acupuncture research, despite what the rebuttal piece states - I'll address this later.
5. I'm not familiar with mouse animal models, but supposedly the MAC values for volatile agents are somewhat the same across species lines. Even so, running the mice at 2-3% isoflurane seems like it would have some sort of effect on the mice.
I'll try to evaluate the original article more tomorrow, but I am excited that someone is attemping to do some research on the possible mechanisms of acupuncture. Since the research with opioid receptors 30+ years ago [kewl, BTW; acupuncture analgesia is paritally abolished by narcan], it seems like research has focused on what acupuncture can / can't treat instead of mechanisms.
Not having any experience in Traditional Chinese Medicine, I can only take my idea so far as it really applies mainly to martial arts.
I used to be a real big Qi believer in my teenage years. Of course, as time went on I started seeing things a bit differently. Nowadays, when explaining something like Combative Breathing or why Karate-ka Kiai when they punch and kick, I might bring up the notion of how it's very similar to this-and-that in Qigong and how people thought it worked hundreds of years ago. However, I only do it if it somehow applies to the discussion or if I think whoever I'm talking to might actually care about the history of it all.
Right after, though, I tend to bring it back to a more tangible level because I don't want people getting stuck on the notion of a ancient school-of-thought that'll ultimately distract us from the real meat-and-potatoes of how thinking, breathing, and posturing yourself in certain ways will help you generate more power or help you psychologically.
Last edited by kendamu; 7/30/2010 8:48pm at .
No, you just need to take Mental Toughness as a feat at level up to increase your spell points. Wizards can take this as a bonus feat. That's why I recommend if you're going to be a chi based warrior you should not multi-class into fighter because you won't need all that strength and dexterity.
Originally Posted by gregaquaman
How about this....... qi is what powers the molecules.
If this is true and ch/qi/ki/hei can be directed and manipulated it is a fact that most of us should devote no time in exploring this concept. Talking out of our asses on the internet is one thing and if you guys cant get your excuse ridden out of shape ass unglued from the monitor the only qi you will ever control is the qi you emanate from your ass.
Last edited by chainpunch; 8/03/2010 3:51pm at .
Reason: me spell so well
Huh? You've lost me there...
Originally Posted by chainpunch
Sorry for being unclear. I just want to say that if qi can be manipulated at will (and if qi is what powers molecules) most us of here are mostly like to talk more and train less so unlikely anything useful will be attained.
Stfu and train moar is what I should have said.
Powers molecules? oesn't make sense....molecules aren't 'powered'...
but I'm nit-picking because I'm a quantum physics geek.
It's the Deepack Choprah technique. Whenever you have a new-agy idea, you can always tie it into quantum physics even if you know nothing about it, because chances are your audience knows nothing about it either. Saying Chi is what powers molecules makes it sound like there's scientific evidence for its existence, which makes it seem more credible.:eusa_clap
Originally Posted by tideliar
If molecules are not powered how do they perform their functions do you think they are static inactive objects?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO