Scientific evidence for "chi"

[Thinktoomuch]

For the past few weeks I have been trying to find whether there is any scientific evidence of the energy (chi, ki, prana, whatever) at the basis of Eastern traditional medicine, and reading the posts on this site to help me see both faces of the coin. So far the picture is still rather muddled, because the argument seems to go (e.g. search for Valerie Hunt):
1 the purportedly "scientific" experiments have not been replicated, they do not count;
2 serious scientists do not believe in this stuff, so do not waste time trying to replicate the experiments;
3 back to 1.

I have came across a statement that Japanese scientists have demonstrated the existence of the chi meridians by injecting isotopes in the acupunture points and recording linear flows 10-15 cm long instead of the normally expected amorphous blob obtained anywhere just 1-2 cm away (Y Ikemi (ed) Integration of Eastern and Western Psychosomatic Medicine, Kyushu University Press, 1996). This looks straightforward enough and easy to verify. Has anybody done so? Would there be any reasons to doubt those physicians? I have googled Ikemi and it appears that he was very well respected by Western, especially US, physicians. Does any of you have access to the medical journals where this kind of research could/has been reviewed? Any real "education" gratefully accepted.

 

[Garrette]

It would be nice to have a reference, preferably a link to the study, otherwise it is difficult to comment on it.

As a layman, as opposed to a scientist, I would be interested in why this study, if it happened as described, is considered to indicate chi. Chi, prana, whatever, are supposed to be energy lines or meridians. I have never heard of a claim that such meridians can convey isotopes in the same way that veins would. The fact that the isotopes are injected at acupuncture points is not sufficient to conclude that they are conveyed by meridians; such points also have nerves and veins. Why should we not conclude the isotopes are conveyed through the veins?

---

Reference your three points:

1. It is not only that the experiments are not replicated, it is also that, for the most part, they are highly flawed. Flaws and replications are sufficient to delegitimize non-paranormal scientific experiments, so this is not an indication of unfairness.

2. It may or may not be true that most scientists don't believe in the paranormal, but the reason that more experiments are not done by the mainstream is that there is no indication they would yield anything. The field of the paranormal has been around for well over a century; in all that time, there has yet to be any serious indication that it deserves attention.

3. Yup.

 

[Bikewer]

I'd want to see a lot more confirmation. There is the lymphatic system, which could well be involved in such a "linear" flow of the injected material.

 

[Nucular]

the argument seems to go (e.g. search for Valerie Hunt):
1 the purportedly "scientific" experiments have not been replicated, they do not count;
2 serious scientists do not believe in this stuff, so do not waste time trying to replicate the experiments;
3 back to 1.

Hmmm, well bearing in mind that replication - especially with a tighter methodology - is the key to scientific progress, I'd personally say (and I'd have thought most here would) that any intriguing or unexpected result in the area of chi or anything else, should be attempted to be replicated asap.

That said, there is a growing feeling among sceptics and scientists that many of these ideas are so old-hat, so tired, anachronistic, so disproven as far as anything can be, that there really is no justification for pouring in more research money. For instance, the recent Lancet editorial slating homeopathic research and saying enough's enough. I have sympathy with this position, though I don't hold it myself. This may be where some are coming from.

Y Ikemi (ed) Integration of Eastern and Western Psychosomatic Medicine, Kyushu University Press, 1996

I notice that's a book, and so may not be reporting peer-reviewed work at all. Do you have the book? Could you provide the reference from the bibliography?

 

[Thinktoomuch]

No, I do not have the book. Same story as with my previous thread re Dr Wisneski. I was hoping to use this forum as a 'reality check' before spending a fortune on dubious literature, but it does not appear to be working: "woos", to use your terminology, are more than happy to sell their stuff hoping to be believed, but skeptics, understandably, are not happy to buy it to check whether they might have something. Not good for serious scientists researching woo stuff, if there are any.

All this is fine, but doesn't it tend to weaken the hypothesis that "many of these ideas are so old-hat, so tired, anachronistic, so disproven as far as anything can be, that there really is no justification for pouring in more research money"? Where is the debunking? In the specific instance, it would hardly appear expensive to run an isotope scan, would it?

 

[fuelair]

No, I do not have the book. Same story as with my previous thread re Dr Wisneski. I was hoping to use this forum as a 'reality check' before spending a fortune on dubious literature, but it does not appear to be working: "woos", to use your terminology, are more than happy to sell their stuff hoping to be believed, but skeptics, understandably, are not happy to buy it to check whether they might have something. Not good for serious scientists researching woo stuff, if there are any.

All this is fine, but doesn't it tend to weaken the hypothesis that "many of these ideas are so old-hat, so tired, anachronistic, so disproven as far as anything can be, that there really is no justification for pouring in more research money"? Where is the debunking? In the specific instance, it would hardly appear expensive to run an isotope scan, would it?

Then, pay someone reputable to run one. Why should someone else do something to satisfy your curiousity - when you can (like buying the book or hunting for it in libraries accessible to you or even on line)? I never ask questions of this type without checking all sources I can find first - makes me look incompetant and/or lazy.

 

[Ericka]

Chi means Life Force, and as western speakers we accept that the life force is DNA. But this is actually disputable. They cracked the human genome, but little or no advancements in medicine have come from studying DNA. There is also some evidence that is just coming out now, that there is a even deeper nano-scale to DNA, and a whole new kind of genome. They are finding bacteria deep in the earth and on other planets, that is too small to observe unless it is fossilized. And no one can explain the source of life, or the tantric energies of creation. That is what Chi is, it is how babies are made, and it is also what makes us age. Unless someone finds a cure for aging, or finds a way to create a human baby without implanting sperm into an embryo. There will always be a reason to believe in Chi, and to believe in a link between the mind and the body.

 

[qayak]

Chi debunked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-x4iJM2aU4

 

[fuelair]

Chi means Life Force, and as western speakers we accept that the life force is DNA. But this is actually disputable. .

Highly disputable - where did you get it from? DNA is simply a chemical code for passing on instructions for molecules to join in particular ways. It is not a force by any definition I have ever heard (BS Biology).

 

[Ericka]

It is like a fractal, NASA has found life in space much smaller than we can detect with instruments on earth and they don't have DNA at all. In fact these bacteria are smaller than one strand of DNA. And they may be the cause of much disease and illness that right now are not even considered to be contagious.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

You are absolutely right. Not checking readily available sources, e.g a dictionary, makes us look incompetent and/or lazy. Been caught many times. Curiously, though, I thought I was doing just what you advocate: as a selection process before buying the books to satisfy my curiosity, I was hunting libraries and sources on line. I would have never thougth I was imposing on anybody to do anything for me: I was just asking fellow members of an "educational" entity to share their knowledge, if they had any, and some have, for which I am grateful.

Or are you implying that these forums (fora, to be pedantic) are not sources worth checking? Of course, if it turns out that opinionated aggressiveness drowns out scholarship you are, again, absolutely right.

 

[Buckaroo]

It is like a fractal, NASA has found life in space much smaller than we can detect with instruments on earth and they don't have DNA at all. In fact these bacteria are smaller than one strand of DNA. And they may be the cause of much disease and illness that right now are not even considered to be contagious.

The structure of DNA is not a fractal. What do nanobacteria (which may not even exist) have to do with chi?

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Thanks for the entertainment, qayak, but that did not debunk chi, it just unmasked another crook. Incidentally, as a 110 lb 25 yo I did actually break slabs of stone with my hand, but I was never told that I could do it because of chi. I thougth that training and mental focus made it possible, and now I have the arthritis to prove it was natural...

 

[Bob Collier]

Thanks for the entertainment, qayak, but that did not debunk chi, it just unmasked another crook.

I agree. But, for me, when I see things like that, I become even more fascinated with what's going on inside the heads of the people involved. Clearly here was yet another case where a proponent's claim that 'it works if you believe it will but doesn't if you believe it won't' can make me wonder if I'm any the wiser about anything. (Actually, I anticipated George Dillman would produce that as his explanation for the showdown failure - I was amazed when he went into that loopy thing about the tongue and the big toes!)

Not exactly sure what I'm trying to say here, though. Could something like 'chi' be dependant upon belief in some way?

It might have been interesting to wire the proponents and the skeptics up to an ECG machine or a biofeedback device of some kind or something like that when testing this, to discover what effects there were in the brain and body to differentiate the two beliefs.

 

[Thinktoomuch]

Thanks Bob, seems that somebody has been doing something similar. Another article I am chasing is Litscher G et al. Effects of qigong on brain function, Neurological Research, 2001, 23,5: 501-505. My guess though is that it won't add evidence for chi, only prove that practitioners can modify their brain function. This is not disputed, is it?

 

[Lothian]

Don’t understand this, but I am no expert. If chi exists I presume it existed before it was ‘discovered’. As such you would expect that the effects of chi are normal.

I am therefore confused by the statement

…. Japanese scientists have demonstrated the existence of the chi meridians by injecting isotopes in the acupunture points and recording linear flows 10-15 cm long instead of the normally expected amorphous blob obtained anywhere just 1-2 cm away

Consider Gravity. When it was discovered things didn’t suddenly start attracting as opposed to flying apart as they did before. If chi exists why is a an amorphous blob normally expected ?

If the key is acupuncture points perhaps what we have is

Japanese scientists have shown that injecting isotopes in certain points of the body results in linear flows 10-15 cm long instead of an amorphous blob obtained just 1-2 cm away when the isotopes are injected in other points.

If that is the case it is interesting but does not demonstrate the existence of chi meridians. It demonstrates that injecting isotopes in some points on some patients resulted in linear flows 10-15 cm long.

Japanese scientist may have developed a theory about why this occurred but I fail to see how it does or can prove chi.

Perhaps this theory can be tied into the theory of acupuncture. You will be aware that no two acupuncturist schools will agree on where the acupuncture points are. Perhaps this can settle their differences. However I don't however see this as supporting accupuncture either.

 

[Nucular]

Chi means Life Force, and as western speakers we accept that the life force is DNA.

What definition of 'life force' are you using Ericka? DNA doesn't come under any definition I can think of.

But this is actually disputable. They cracked the human genome, but little or no advancements in medicine have come from studying DNA.

Well, they should give up then. But seriously, what? I suspect from this statement you were expecting the 'human genome' to be publsihed in a book, which doctors buy and then know how to cure all illness. It doesn't work like that, and ongoing work in this field is leading to plenty of innovations and developments. This stuff just isn't instant. Or have I got you wrong?

There is also some evidence that is just coming out now, that there is a even deeper nano-scale to DNA, and a whole new kind of genome.

Do you have a link, reference or citation for that?

They are finding bacteria deep in the earth and on other planets, that is too small to observe unless it is fossilized.

The only thing I can think of that you are referring to there are the Martian meteorites, which another poster has pointed out are extremely controversial. And I'm not sure about your 'too small to observe unless it's fossilised' comment, why would this be?

And no one can explain the source of life,

What do you mean by 'the source of life'? What has yet to be explained? There are, of course, many mysteries about life, the universe and everything, I just wonder which one(s) you're referring to.

or the tantric energies of creation.

What are these?

That is what Chi is, it is how babies are made

*Fighting back urge to explain how babies are actually made*

and it is also what makes us age.

What makes you assert this?

unless someone finds a cure for aging, or finds a way to create a human baby without implanting sperm into an embryo. There will always be a reason to believe in Chi, and to believe in a link between the mind and the body.

How do these things you've mentioned amount to "a reason to believe in Chi"?

It is like a fractal, NASA has found life in space much smaller than we can detect with instruments on earth and they don't have DNA at all. In fact these bacteria are smaller than one strand of DNA.

Do you know what any of those words mean? I don't mean to be rude, it's just that I don't know what you're on about.

 

[Lothian]

or the tantric energies of creation.

What are these?

That is what Chi is, it is how babies are made

Nucular, I think is Ericka is saying that chi is what Sting was going on about a few years ago. You know; having sex for hour after hour with neither party moving very much.

 

[exarch]

Chi can be explained very easily:

It is the way they described body mechanics 1000 years ago.

If my martial arts teacher says "don't tense up your arm, don't overstretch it, you'll lose strength that way", I may go "huh?", he could then explain how, if your muscles are too tense, you'll lose flexibility, and you can no longer feel which way your opponent is moving, and tensing yous muscles takes energy which is wasted on tensing up, it slightly restricts the blood flow, plus it means your reaction is slower too. Having your elbow joint stretched instead of slightly bent also has similar results on your strength and reaction times. And it locks your arm in place meaning you can't move and your muscles don't have the ideal angle for optimal leverage, etc...
Luckily, this is how my teacher explains it.

He could also say: tensing your arm and stretching it like that blocks the flow of chi. Have you relax your arm, feel the blood flow in your arm, and imagine rays of energy flowing through your arm and out your hand, and achieve the same understanding of why you have to hold your arm like that and keep your muscles relaxed.

One explanation assumes an understanding of anatomy, ergonomics, physics and mechanics. The other assumes no knowledge of such.

 

[Nucular]

Nucular, I think is Ericka is saying that chi is what Sting was going on about a few years ago. You know; having sex for hour after hour with neither party moving very much.

Ah, I see now - so let me get it straight, Sting has sex for hours on end without moving very much, thereby transmitting Martian nanobacteria, or 'midichlorians' if you will, which cause fractal waves in the tantric energies of the universe, and that's how babies are made? So that's why the human genome project has failed to cure Mekhbesi disease!