Talk:Qigong/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The revision!

hey User:TheProfessor - overall the re-org and copyeding you did, looks great. You can see that I made it through most of the article before i stopped - overall i think you did a great job writing a description that appropriately frames things. I started to struggle a bit when at the Contemporary Views section, where I felt that you didn't bring out the full range. We need to give the whole range, from the most sympathetic to the most unsympathetic here. I tried to do it in a neutral and more importantly respectful way. I hope you can see that. Happy to discuss this.Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Struggling more in the Recreation and popular use section, to the point where i felt i should stop and Talk. I think I see why you put CAM use went here.. but this doesn't quite feel right. I am a bit of a loss.. am thinking!! Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your edits. Sorry to leave you with those messes. Actually, all I did so far was parse the existing text to get the structure right. Various sections are poorly developed, with a lot of piecemeal text added over time that has never been properly edited and integrated or removed. So please don't read too much into anything. Yes, the Contemporary Views section was inadequate, and appreciate your effort to bring NPOV. I'm not keen on the tone set by starting with "the chasm", and associating CAM, TCM, New Age, "unscientific"... I'll try to get back with some specific text we can live with until this section can be fleshed out. In terms of CAM, I don't think it belongs under Recreation and popular use, so I moved it to it's own section for now. TheProfessor (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi professor -- no messes! I am just getting to know your persona here on Wikipedia, and I don't know what approach you intend to take toward the very hard and ambiguous issues around describing qigong on Wikipedia. I am still thinking through what the most appropriate ways are. I am very grateful to have you as a partner - you know a lot about the subject matter yet are very willing to talk calmly and with a true openness to dialogue (I find the latter rare, and is the thing I am most grateful). So thanks! Please continue to be WP:BOLD and to make the article as excellent as you can. I will do the same, and when we disagree about anything I am sure we will be able to talk it through, using policies and guidelines and our best judgement about how to achieve Wikipedia's goals in this article. I am still surprised that we are the only ones working on this now, and just want to say again that at any time others could start joining us; I can't promise that they will also work in the same spirit that we are establishing. But let's enjoy this while we have it! Jytdog (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog and the Professor I am still here and willing to help pull studies and contribute recommendations, although I cannot on a daily basis. Thank you for collaborating on this project. Please let me know how best I can support your efforts.NatHealth1 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi NatHealth1. Thanks for offering to help. In terms of pulling studies and contributing recommendations, sources and neutral summaries would be appreciated concerning major topics of 4 Contemporary view and 5 Health applications: 4.1 Prevailing viewpoints, 4.2 Scientific basis, 4.3 Impediments to research, 5.1 Recreation and popular use 5.2 Directed use, and 5.3 Safety. More specific needs will arise as we progress with defining the scope and detailed outline of these sections. Information from the systematic reviews and overview of systematic reviews needs to be compiled and summarized (specifically concerning which conditions were examined, numbers of RTCs involved, which reviews were deemed of good vs poor quality, specific conclusions, especially if they differ from the general conclusions of poor quality research and no solid conclusions about effectiveness, and criteria by which clinical research was considered poor quality).

Also, I would be grateful if you or anybody else could help flesh out some of the major theory and applications sections with high-quality, well-sourced text:

• 3.2 Daoist qigong, 3.3 Buddhist qigong, and 3.4 Confucian qigong - 1-2 paragraphs, identifying what distinguishes each, and the major contributions to theory.
• 6 Mediation and self-cultivation applications - 1-3 paragraphs, with links to main Wikipedia articles about Meditation, Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.
• 7 Martial arts applications - 1-3 paragraphs, with links to main Wikipedia article(s) concerning Martial arts.

I recommend Liu and Qiang 2013 as a source (Liu, Tian Jun, and Xiao Mei Qiang (editors). 2013. Chinese Medical Qigong, Third Edition. Singing Dragon, London and Philadelphia.) TheProfessor (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Jytdog. Yes, let's enjoy it! TheProfessor (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphan Text, to edit and reincorporate

Complementary and alternative medicine In the field of complementary and alternative medicine, qigong practitioners focus on maintaining health and self-healing, traditionally viewed as balancing the body's energy meridians and enhancing the intrinsic capacity of the body to heal. Qigong has been used extensively in China as part of traditional Chinese medicine, and is included in the curriculum of Chinese Universities.

There are three main forms of qigong used for self care and to complement medical treatment:

1. Qigong exercises (also called "internal Qigong") performed by individuals for general health or treatment of disease,
2. Qigong massage by a trained Qigong practitioner to treat specific injuries, illnesses or other conditions (e.g. autism); and
3. External qigong in which a trained practitioner focuses healing energy on patients without touching them.

Controversy There is little controversy concerning the benefit of qigong when the definition of qigong is limited to a series of physical movements and a set of relaxation exercises. Conflict has arisen when the claims made by proponents of qigong border on the supernatural.

Some researchers have labeled the subject matter of qigong as a pseudoscience. In addition, some claim that the origin and nature of qigong practice has led to misconceptions and misuses, including psychiatric problems and the formation of cults

Skepticism towards qigong is also applied to the field of Traditional Chinese medicine, and extends to the broader subject of alternative medicine. The basic problem is that the information available from these fields often does not fit scientific acceptability or medical interpretation, and is difficult to replicate using double-blind control studies. Skeptics contend that most of the benefits derived from Alternative medicine are, at best, derived from a placebo effect.

The main arguments from the view of skeptics against the correlation between qigong practices and health-related results are:

• The lack of evidence from quality clinical trials to support health-related claims.
• The existence of qi, or any form of vitalism, has not been independently verified in an experimental setting. Such a concept is not recognized in the biological sciences.
• Reported claims of supernatural abilities appear to be tricks more suited to magic shows than to any genuine scientific discipline.
• Personal benefits for some qigong masters might have provided them with an incentive to exaggerate their claims.

TheProfessor (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary TCM

Contemporary practitioners of TCM hold traditional concepts of qi as valid and useful, and seek to build on them.

Alternative medicine

Those who seek to adapt TCM may also hold qi as valid concept, or may consider qi as a metaphor for biological processes, or as a part of spiritual healing..

Scientific perspective

Some scientists have attempted to discover biological processes that might be correlates for qi,, while others unsympathetic to TCM dismiss qi as a form of vitalism, a "prescientific cultural artifact".

TheProfessor (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Terminology, Organization, and NPOV: I'd like to address some issues about terminology, organization, and NPOV. First, do we really want to frame this as a controversy about qi? This may belong in the qi article, but I don't think it belongs here. I've removed the qi and questionable text, but retained the segregation of CMQ for now. Second, I am not sure about posing this as TCM and CAM vs "Scientific perspective" and then segregating scientific part of Chinese Medical Qigong under TCM. Setting this up as TCM and CAM vs "Science" go against NPOV, especially given that many associated with TCM and CAM also are strongly science oriented, including Liu and Qiang 2013, Chinese Medical Qigong. By the way this is "the only official textbook used in colleges of traditional Chinese medicine in China". They use the term "Chinese Medical Qigong", which is an accepted term in other scholarly literature, and I think we need to adopt it. Along with a clear presentation of classical and TCM background, the textbook presents a strong science perspective and solid scientific research summary. Let's keep this simple: 1) adopt current and scholarly terms like "Chinese Medical Qigong" (CMQ), which includes "classical" and "traditional" Chinese medicine, and is synthesized with science, 2) agree on scope and detailed outline for this section. My thought was to summarize contemporary views of qigong, summarize a scientific approach and results to date, and summarize impediments to research. Here is the current outline, retaining the recent change from "view" to "views":

4 Contemporary views

4.1 Prevailing viewpoints

4.2 Scientific basis

4.3 Impediments to research

TheProfessor (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, above, you write, " First, do we really want to frame this as a controversy about qi?" I don't think there is any need to frame it as a controversy and I don't see it as one. There are different places you can stand, when you think about qi. Depending on where you stand, it looks different. Simply naming those different places and describing how qi looks from each one, is not framing it is a controversy. Controversy breaks out when people mix up the places where you stand. There are places where complete relativism in this sense is the perfect path to follow, in my view. However, there are places where we cannot be relativistic, and that is when we try to say anything about biomedical reality, in Wikipedia's voice. In those situations, the only standpoint that is valid, is the standpoint of science. I am emphasizing that very strongly. TCM is a prescientific set of ideas. It is great when scientists investigate the basis for, and the efficacy of, various TCM modalities. As we find MEDRS compliant secondary sources describing that research, it is great to use those sources to generate content describing the findings,in WIkipedia's voice. But that textbook you are citing is not a "medical textbook" - it is a TCM textbook - it starts with the assumption that qi and other prescientific models of the human body are real and this is not a scientifically valid assumption. The textbook says very clearly that the essence of CMQ is "the skill of body-mind exercise that integrates body, breath, and mind adjustments into one." Really, this is not a mainstream medical consensus viewpoint; when my mom's doctor thinks about her risk of stroke from her atrial fibrillation, he gives her coumadin to lower the risk that her blood will clot; he doesn't work with her to integrate her body, breath, and mind. I cannot emphasize this enough. Further along those lines, the CMQ textbook is not a MEDRS-compliant source for statements about health, as they it fails the "independent" test - please see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Use_independent_sources. If you like, we can bring this source to the MEDRS talk board and see if you folks think it can be used to support the content you are proposing ("According to scientific research synthesized in the 2013 Chinese Medical Qigong textbook, physiological effects of qigong are numerous, and include...") -- then you can experience that wider conversation for yourself. But please do keep in mind that the only standpoint from which Wikipedia can make statements about biomedical reality (e.g. actual health effects of qigong) is the scientific standpoint, of which there is only one (not an eastern one and a western one) - we cannot be relativistic about that. Since I come from that perspective when I edit here, I don't understand why you reacted negatively when I framed the benefits of qigong from the standpoint of TCM as being a statement from within TCM. I was using the relativistic stance and it was a sincere effort at compromise. There are other editors here who would have (and may, if the come along) delete that content outright as violating WP:FRINGE - please be aware of that. If that should happen, I will argue to keep it, stated relativistically this way. But I cannot support statements made about reality from within TCM. btw i want to acknowledge (again) that you know way more about qigong than i do and i hope we can continue to productively collaborate. Along those lines, I think it would very helpful in the article to provide a definition of what contemporary CMQ is, along the lines of the quote I provided above. Do you agree? Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your perspective. To properly address all you say could take some effort, so I'll just respond to a few practical points:

1) I agree that with respect to reality the only standpoint is science. Also, no discipline or group is the sole owner of science; we need to be careful about biases, assumptions, and over-generalization. Yes, practically we follow WP:MEDRS (and I personally am thankful for well formulated policies that ensure integrity).

2) Yes, Liu and Qiang 2013 is a TMC/CMQ textbook and should be clearly labeled as such; and while it might be interesting to see what the MEDRS says, let's save that for later when we have a clear reason to do so.

3) I understand that TCM is viewed as "prescience", and that other terms like "pseudoscience" and "unscientific" may also be useful (for example with respect to "intelligent design" and "creation science", and with respect to various of the historical efforts to show that qigong is "scientific"), but not with respect to earnest efforts to reconcile TCM and CAM and science. Practically, I just offer caution before labeling or overgeneralizing. A scientist interested studying TCM or CAM, analyzing or performing solid scientific studies about these subjects, and even positing plausible theories and hypotheses should not be labeled "prescientific", "pseudoscience", or "unscientific" because of some sort of guilt by association with the subject matter. Another example is the current language "proponents of TCM" (Are people who study or write textbooks about astronomy "proponents of astronomy", and what would that mean?). I prefer language that makes less assumptions and is sufficiently descriptive and well qualified, like "in a summary of scientific research, the 2013 CMQ textbook...". I recognize the need for simplification and clarity. I just caution us to be careful of these labels, especially the ones that originate as critiques of a discipline or group, rather than from within the discipline or group. Yes, it make sense to use this source with qualification, and yes, we need to flesh out the section with MEDRS sources. And I do understand your points about about Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Use_independent_sources and WP:FRINGE. Thanks.

4) In terms of framing the Contemporary views section, ideally that comes from the currently expressed views of the major groups: in particular a) TCM/CMQ, which focuses on integration of "body, breath, and mind adjustments", reconciliation of TCM with science, and utility for medical conditions; b) integrative medicine/CAM, which focuses on underlying scientific explanation of efficacy, and utility for medical conditions as an alternative to or complementary to conventional treatment; c) mainstream medicine, which focuses on rigorous scientific proof, safety and efficacy, but for which qigong is mostly off the radar or dismissed; and d) practitioners who are mostly looking for reliable or engaging information related to their interest (health benefits, "cool" history and culture, safety, good techniques, how to...). Yes, let's clarify CMQ. And indeed it probably goes under TCM.

5) In terms of qi, detailed analysis of qi belongs in the qi article, and a concise summary, with perspective, could be part of the TCM/CMQ theory (since that should actually be a historical progression), or part of the Contemporary views section. In either case, I think it is important to emphasize that all the perspectives are trying (and perhaps succeeding) in being scientific. As the CMQ textbook states, qi could either be a physical reality or a psychological effect (lucid, and, as you pointed out, arguably scientific). Yes, let's address qi based on sources, in balance with contemporary viewpoints (not hellbent on proving, disproving, or using labels to make a case), and with care not to compromise NPOV by choice of labels, oversimplification, or how we frame the presentation. Yes, I probably over-reacted, and I do see your reasonable and earnest effort.

6) I suppose my real point, which may solve any difference of opinion, if there really is one, is that science is more fundamental than any of the "viewpoints", and needs a different label, like "basis". Mostly I'm just agreeing with you. Yes, let's be clear about "viewpoints" and emphasize "scientific basis".

7) Let's come up with a clear distillation of the scope of this section and the best way to organize it. In summary, a) let's use clear categories like TCM/CMQ, Integrative Medicine/CAM, and possibly Mainstream Medicine (or some better label other than "Mainstream" = "Science"); and yes, science prevails for all, and thats what gets emphasized as Scientific Basis. b) let's emphasize the viewpoints based on reliable sources and in proportion to what that viewpoint sees as important; and c) importantly, let's get a really good summary of research, both mechanisms and clinical trials; and d) let's be explicit about the impediments to research. Below is a more detailed draft outline for this section.

Thanks again.TheProfessor (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary Views - Detailed Outline, 2-March-2014

4 Contemporary views

4.1 Prevailing viewpoints

4.1.1 TCM/CMQ, qigong as body-breath-meditation integration, reconciling TCM and science, for example scientific understanding of qi

4.1.2 Integrative medicine/CAM, effective complementary treatments and alternatives, scientific underpinnings

4.1.3 Conventional medicine?: unproven based on standards for scientific proof; offlabel and CAM use; other?

4.2 Scientific basis

4.2.1 What is the scientific basis for study of qigong?

4.2.2 Mechanisms: what has been studied, results, quality of research, conclusions

4.2.3 Clinical Studies: what has been studied, effect, quality of research, conclusions

4.3 Impediments to research

- economic: funding, return on investment;

- challenges of sample size, controls, experimental design, dosing, bias; impracticality of double blinding,...

- conclusions

TheProfessor (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi professor, responding to your points above the outline.

1) and 2) I am OK with this. something is "science" that follows the scientific method. there is just one "science". that CMQ textbook is not pure science nor purely prescientific; it is a mashup of the two

3)

a) you are missing my point here - arguing with a ghost. I didn't write anything about astronomy and astrology. Who are you talking to? (real question!) TCM is based on prescientific constructs. It came into existence before the scientific method and its theory of the body is similar to the "humors" that physicians in the west used to talk about. I am sure you have heard all that before; it is just the historical truth. It is very accurate, and very NPOV, to name it as such. I don't think it is useful to call it "pseudoscience" as that just makes people angry.

b) I said very clearly that it is possible to use the scientific method to try to discover correlates for qi and to investigate whether qigong is safe and effective for any given use. So again, I don't know why you are saying that back to me.

c) Quote from the CMQ textbook: "Meridian Theory is most often employed in directing Qi to overcome diseases and in external Qi healing (spreading Qi). In the former, lucid Qi is guided along meridians to the diseased area, mainly during inhalation, while turbid Qi is let out of the body through the meridians when exhaling. Meridians, in this case, are the channels for directing Qi to "wash" the diseased area again and again....Proficient mastering and correct application of the theory of meridians comprise the key to achieving good effects from Qi exercise. It is equally true that frequent Qigong practice will help channel and regulate Qi-blood, making it possible for the internal organs and all the limbs and bones to connect to one another....: " Qi is accepted as real. Meridians are accepted as real. This text says we can manipulate Qi along meridians to "wash" diseased organs and cause "organs and limbs and bones" to "connect to one another" . This is not scientific discourse - this is prescientific discourse. Anybody is free to believe whatever they want, but we cannot put statements of belief on par with scientifically validated statements. This is very very different from using the scientific method to investigate biological bases for Qi or the efficacy of a given intervention.

4) With respect to TCM as a discipline, I have no doubt that TCM is a discipline, with a long history and a lot to learn for people who want to enter the field. Many of the humanities, as you know, are disciplines. Historiography is a discipline. Theology is a discipline. I mean no disrespect to the discipline of TCM. TCM just hits a wall, when its claims to treat diseases are based on "tradition" or anecdotal evidence and when it claims its theory of the body is true. That is the domain of the scientific method.

a) please help me understand how TCM/CMQ really seeks "reconciliation of TCM with science" when its leading textbook teaches such nonscientific concepts so boldly? From what I can see, TCM stands firmly on the foundation of the TCM view of the body, and has faith that science will validate it one day. In that textbook, I find zero real questioning of the basis of the tradition - there is no openness to the reality that qi and meridians are prescientific concepts; no openness to the high likelihood that historically they were created to explain interventions that were discovered empirically, and that it is very very likely that some of the things that qigong has traditionally been held to be useful for - these accretions with time - will be found to be incorrect as more and more interventions are tested in clinical trials. This is how it goes with all traditional medicines. (in europe they used willow bark for sore throats and other pain...) If I am wrong - if that textbook actually says somewhere "it is plausible that we will never discover a biological correlate of a meridian" - please show me! (i mean that!) I find that textbook to be very confident that its conception of the body is true and useful. We need to reformulate the stance of TMQ accordingly....

b) In my perspective the integrative medicine/CAM field knows that it cannot talk about vitalism in the academy; instead they embrace the premise stated in the intro to the CMQ book that western medicine is broken and doesn't deal adequately with the whole person and very much needs "complementation" with holistic approaches like qigong. CAM does seek to validate the efficacy of various uses for qigong, yes. But we should also make the claims about what CAM sees itself bringing, stronger...

c) the view of mainstream medicine seems OK, my sense is that doctors are very invested in their patients eating better and exercising more and would by no means reject that message of qigong. the deeper notion of qigong is probably off the radar for many doctors but lots of folks have heard of tai chi. i cannot imagine a doctor saying "don't do that!" to a patient who took up regular qigong or tai chi!

d) practitioners are either going to be under a) or b), aren't they? why do you have them as a fourth category? Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. Yes, let's not argue with ghosts. I don't want to lead us off track. [I appreciate you bringing up willow bark, given that it is a fascinating example from many perspectives (historical, ethnobotanical, chemical, evolutionary, pharmaceutical, biological, medical...) and certainly has various lessons (a long history, used traditionally and independently in many cultures, eventually studied from chemical and medical perspectives, in botanical pharmacopeias, contains salicin, similar to acetylsalicylic acid = aspirin, has other bioactive secondary compounds, anti-inflammatory, secondary compounds common throughout the Salicaceae = willow family, and useful for botanical classification and constructing evolutionary phylogeny; same side effects as other NSAIDS, perhaps milder; much now known, more being learned, etc.)...] Please don't get me wrong, I hear your points about the CMQ textbook as a mashup, and your skepticism about TCM. Thanks again. Let's proceed. TheProfessor (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong - i think practicing qigong regularly with a good instructor can bring a world of benefit, mentally and physically. What I care about (as previously stated) is that in Wikipedia we have to be careful with health claims; i am also very interested in the intellectual problem of how to describe things like qigong in a NPOV way as defined in Wikipedia. I brought up willow on purpose - it is a great example of a traditional "cure" that we have figured out underlying science for. Of course, if you had sore throat away back when and the problem was throat cancer or an infection, willow bark would not have saved your life. And while there are other herbal remedies with stories similar to willow, there are plenty that have been shown to do nothing. That is the deal with all traditional medicine systems ... they are all an accretion of interventions discovered empirically, passed on anecodotally, and with no idea of how they actually work (when they do work) and with no good diagnostic technology. they were the best humanity could do (of course they were!) and i am not saying - in any way - that a biological basis for qi will never be discovered. we have to deal with what is known today. i am very humble in the face of how small of a fragment of the universe we understand, currently. but i stand stubbornly on saying what is known, and what is not known. anyway.... if we are on the same page, (are we?) do you want to add back the stuff you pulled or shall i? do you want to try redefining the contemporary perspectives maybe? i very much appreciate the dialogue! Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's be careful with health claims, and we all need to play by the rules. [Yes, I am also humbled by how little we know, and how our different perspectives can bring greater strength. The willow story has different lessons depending on the eyes that see it. For me, it emphasizes the value of empirical knowledge, for which there is a kind of "selection" akin to "natural selection", where the same cultural practices arose independently, through the amazing human capacity to observe, synthesize, remember, believe, and make up satisfying stories. Important new scientific understanding is based on a lot of empirical history, direct insight, and then going back and working with logical falsification until we are sufficiently satisfied or until some contradiction arises enough times. In this sense science is just a tool for Truth, or Science with a big "S", and of course what is true is true independent of what we believe may be science. So high standards give high confidence and sometimes slow progress. And I hear you that aspirin does not necessarily save lives. I need to step away and pace myself, not for lack of interest or desire to see this through.] So, yes please go ahead and restore text and reorganize as you see fit. I'll trust you will incorporate whatever additional truth may have emerged through all these words. And there will be time for refinement later. Thanks for your patience. TheProfessor (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, yes, we are mostly on the same page, and certainly where it counts in terms of the shared goals of being careful with health claims in Wikipedia, and being interested in the intellectual problem of describing subjects like qigong in NPOV. With respect to the latter, I value also share an appreciation for our dialogue and collaboration. There are some academic points where we may differ, and with time I may articulate some of these as needed in the context of specific content for the article. In terms of the content that I pulled, I prefer gradually moving it back in place gradually, in the context of the scope and organization for the section and other sections. Below is an updated detailed outline for the section, based on this discussion, consideration of key sources I have been exploring (specifically with respect to IM/CAM and mainstream/conventional medicine), and realizing that it is probably better to flatten the structure somewhat to sections and subsections. Based on this outline/scope, I'll go ahead and implement the structure together with some initial content. I would be grateful if we could agree on the basic TheProfessor (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary Views - Detailed Outline, 4-March-2014

4 Contemporary views

4.1 Chinese Medical Qigong: definition, qigong as body-breath-meditation integration, emerging scientific basis

4.2 Integrative, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine: definition, qigong as complementary treatments, scientific basis

4.3 Conventional medicine: unproven based on standards for scientific proof; offlabel and CAM use

4.4 Scientific basis: Establishing scientific basis of qigong; basic research: what has been studied, results, quality of research, conclusions; clinical research: what has been studied, effect, quality of research, conclusions

4.3 Impediments to research: economic (funding, return on investment), design (sample size, controls, dosing, bias; impracticality of double blinding; conclusions

TheProfessor (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Integrative Medicine / Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Integrative Medicine

"Integrative medicine (IM) refers to the blending of conventional and complementary medicines and therapies with the aim of using the most appropriate of either or both modalities to care for the patient as a whole."7

Kotsirilos, Vicki; Vitetta, Luis; Sali, Avni (2011-01-28). A Guide to Evidence-based Integrative and Complementary Medicine (Kindle Locations 455-456). Elsevier Health Sciences APAC. Kindle Edition.

7 RACGP-AIMA Joint Position Statement of the RACGP and AIMA. Complementary Medicine, 2004, Online. Available: http://www.racgp.org.au/download/documents/Policies/Health%20systems/complementary_medicine.pdf (accessed 4-Mar-2014)

TheProfessor (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Integrative medicine is defined as healing-oriented medicine that takes account of the whole person (body, mind, and spirit), including all aspects of lifestyle. It emphasizes the therapeutic relationship and makes use of all appropriate therapies, both conventional and alternative."

Rakel, David (2012-04-12). Integrative Medicine (Rakel, Integrative Medicine) (Kindle Locations 826-828). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.

TheProfessor (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Complementary Medicine

"The term ‘complementary medicine’ (CM) broadly describes a number of different therapies that may or may not have much in common, ranging from mind–body therapies, such as hypnosis, spiritual healing and meditation, to herbal medicine, nutritional supplements and bioenergetic healing. This can be a problem when defining this area, so it is always best to focus on these therapies individually, not collectively as a group, and to determine from the science which of the therapies have evidence, which are safe and can play a valid role in clinical care, and for which specific condition each is suited.

It is for this reason that the term ‘integrative medicine’ is preferable. It describes a style of practice in which the practitioner and patient choose the appropriate therapy or medicine for the treatment of the condition. Acupuncture may be suitable for some patients but not for others; surgery may be suitable for some patients but not for others; herbs may be suitable for some conditions but not for others, and so on.

The scientific evidence for many CMs is growing, with positive systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including Cochrane reviews."

Kotsirilos, Vicki; Vitetta, Luis; Sali, Avni (2011-01-28). A Guide to Evidence-based Integrative and Complementary Medicine (Kindle Locations 130-139). Elsevier Health Sciences APAC. Kindle Edition.

TheProfessor (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Complementary vs Alternative Medicine

"Many Americans, nearly 40 percent, use health care approaches developed outside of mainstream Western, or conventional, medicine for specific conditions or overall well-being. When describing health approaches with non-mainstream roots, people often use the words 'alternative' and 'complementary' interchangeably, but the two terms refer to different concepts:

'Complementary' generally refers to using a non-mainstream approach together with conventional medicine.

'Alternative' refers to using a non-mainstream approach in place of conventional medicine.

True alternative medicine is not common. Most people use non-mainstream approaches along with conventional treatments. And the boundaries between complementary and conventional medicine overlap and change with time. For example, guided imagery and massage, both once considered complementary or alternative, are used regularly in some hospitals to help with pain management."

NIH NCCAM 2013 (updated from original 2008). CAM Basics. National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). NIH NCCAM Website: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam (accessed 4-Mar-2014). pdf document: http://nccam.nih.gov/sites/nccam.nih.gov/files/CAM_Basics_What_Are_CAIHA.pdf (accessed 4-Mar-2014).

TheProfessor (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Medicine That Works

If it works, it's medicine. If it doesn't work, it's everything else. Careful now !! -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Research Summaries from IM/CAM Sources

"In sum, the enthusiasm about QG studies in China a decade ago certainly generated both interesting data and some doubts about certain results because of weak research design, and future investigation is merited. The pioneering work conducted there provided valuable hypotheses for further testing of QG effects and underlying mechanisms, and opened opportunities for international collaboration in a new wave of QG research around world. As the extension of this early work, the clinical studies performed over the past decade in many parts of the world, including China, have advanced research design and methodology in this area. The new evidence obtained lends support for beneficial effects of QG in improving health and function, especially in some chronic conditions associated with aging and related physical and psychological well-being, as noted by Ng and Tsang (2009) as well as by Rogers et al (2009). New RCTs have also offered a balanced view of QG, including its limitations in treating certain heritable and highly debilitating disease that have yet to be offered a definitive pharmaceutical cure. The international trials have also helped ease some of the concerns about cultural bias in drawing conclusions regarding the healing effects of QG that would have arisen had such studies been conducted only in its homeland, China. However, gaps still remain in this research area. Most of the existing RCTs have used small samples, and not all of them have employed an adequate control. In fact, just what is the appropriate sham QG to use a control will remain a question, as does the use of sham needles in acupuncture research. Korean scholars’ use of a motion similar to QG but without breathing and mental technique can be seen as a creative attempt to address this issue (Lee, Huh et al, 2003). Further, because there are numerous forms of QG, it will be interesting to test which form may especially benefit which chronic conditions. As noted by Mannerkorpi and Arndorw (2004), certain forms of practice may be harmful for certain diseases. Likewise, the QD phenomena observed in China also calls for more investigation of the interplay between forms of QG and personality types. When the use of internal QG spreads in the West, evidence-based regulations on training and practice may also be established, as was the case with acupuncture. At present, perhaps one thing can be said to be certain. QG is one type of mind-body, healthy lifestyle exercise, and its long-term benefits can be realized only with committed and appropriate practice.

CLINICAL STUDIES ON THE EFFICACY OF EXTERNAL QI GONG

At the dawn of the new millennium, the surging public interest in complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in the United States prompted the initiation of several RCTs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These trials investigated the role of external QG in the treatment of medically diagnosed conditions and conformed to a higher standard of clinical research design. Often, such investigation has to involve interdisciplinary collaborations and multiple standardized assessments of physical and mental health outcomes (Ai et al, 2001; Chen et al, 2008; Wu et al, 1999). Yet this type of investigation can raise more design questions than studies of internal QG practice."

Micozzi, Marc S. (2010-04-01). Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Fundamentals of Complementary and Integrative Medicine) (Kindle Locations 22278-22306). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.

"SUMMARY At the end of their research article, Ai et al (2001) described the implications of these new investigations of QG for clinical sciences as follows: Inquiry into controversial issues surrounding QG does not arise only from the need to improve the quality of research design on energy healing trials. It is also a call for continuing innovation of research methodology to address the unique challenge of evaluating the complicated frameworks of CAM modalities. Through close cooperation between researchers and CAM practitioners, standardized approaches to valid research protocols can be developed. By scientific testing of plural pathway models, the blossoming of research on energy healing may eventually enrich methodologies used in clinical research on other types of health care."

Micozzi, Marc S. (2010-04-01). Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Fundamentals of Complementary and Integrative Medicine) (Kindle Locations 22396-22403). Elsevier Health Sciences. Kindle Edition.

TheProfessor (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

checkin

I have been distracted with other articles the past week or so, and just reviewed the whole article. Looks great to me! thanks Professor for your work in dramatically improving this article, working within our policies and guidelines. I think you have walked the narrow path well between respectfully describing the subject matter and not departing from MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. Yes, we are making good progress. Thanks for your help. TheProfessor (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Organization and medical content

Headings

The section heading "directed use" does not appear ideal to me. "Directed use" is vague and not particularly helpful in summarizing the section. Yobol (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yobol, thanks for your recent edits to the Qigong article. Let's address these in the context of the article's organization and scope. Below are updated draft outlines for the overall article and for the Contemporary views section. Jytdog, what are your thoughts about "Directed use", since you proposed it? TheProfessor (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On another topic, introducing a section with the heading "Skepticism" in the middle of the Contemporary Viewpoints is not consistent with the structure of the section and out of balance, though I agree there is content that needs to be brought back in the proper locations. How about parsing this into appropriate parts of the article, for example some may go in History, some under the existing categories of views (Contemporary CMQ, IM/CAM, and Conventional medicine), and some may require a new category (e.g., Popular, Proponents, Critics). Jytdog, you suggested that this subsection could be eliminated if we incorporated the content appropriately and got rid of strawmen, etc. Thoughts? TheProfessor (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Directed use" I am not sure what that is supposed to mean, and if it is not obvious, it makes for a poor section header. What is supposed to be in that section?

Regarding the "Skepticism" section, that appears to be a significant viewpoint that needs to be incorporated. I have no objection in the abstract if that material is incorporated into a separate section, but I do think that the material and viewpoint needs to be present, and outright removal probably isn't appropriate. Yobol (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to lose content, and I favor parsing this out appropriately under existing headings. I'll give more thought about how to handle this, including whether we need additional viewpoint headings (Popular, Critics/Skeptics, Proponents...). We have other significant "orphan text", like "qigong deviation", but I think that belongs under CMQ theory, and possibly partly under research. TheProfessor (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I threw out "Directed use" and I agree it is awkward. here is the distinction. qigong is used to benefit health, just like any form of regularly practiced exercise or meditative practice benefits health. (currently under "Recreation and popular use") qigong is also used in CAM/TCM for specific indications, and this is where all the clinical studies have been done on pain, cancer, etc etc. This stuff is currenlry under "Directed use". So, general vs specific; exercise/meditation vs. "therapeutic use"... i was struggling to come up with language that respects/reflects TCM's view that of a continuum of uses for qigong (always about maintaining health/balance however you say it) from maintaining health to treating disease... and the more Western way of thinking where interventions are really split off. So general use vs directed use. If this seems just plain stupid to you I totally understand. :) Am very open to more standard language. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now, (I think). I would prefer to divide it this way: a section on how it is used (describing what practitioners expect or for what purposes it is advertised for), with a section on research describing what the research shows (are we seeing what the practitioners are expecting/are results as advertised). The general/directed distinction is not obvious to me, so if we keep it that way, we need to have a lead sentence in each sentence describing it as such. Yobol (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If I am understanding correctly, "Directed use" was chosen in lieu of other wording, like "Medical use" or "Therapeutic use" (which we could also consider). I was intending that this subsection eventually might include TCM use, IM/CAM use, Conventional Medical use (as exercise, and possibly other), or any other use under professional guidance; and as part of professional curriculum. Yes, Yobol, this could be made clear with careful language in the lead sentences. I had been thinking that research would go here or under Contemporary views. Now I am thinking of a separate research section. I'd like to agree on a really solid outline and scope, including specific wording for the headings (see below). TheProfessor (talk) 06:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Qigong Article Outline - Draft, 5-March-2014

1 Qigong basics

1.1 Etymology

1.2 History and origins

2 Practices, forms, and technique

2.1 Practices

2.2 Forms

2.3 Technique

3 Traditional and classical theory

3.1 Chinese medical qigong

3.2 Daoist qigong

3.3 Buddhist qigong

3.4 Confucian qigong

4 Contemporary views

4.1 Contemporary Chinese Medical Qigong

4.2 Integrative, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine

4.3 Conventional medicine

4.4 Scientific basis

4.5 Impediments to research

5 Research

5.1 Basic research

5.2 Clinical research

6 Health applications

6.1 Recreation and popular use

6.2 Directed use

6.3 Safety

7 Meditation and self-cultivation applications

8 Martial arts applications

9 Conclusion: Shifting views

TheProfessor (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Research

I restored the lead concerning clinical research to the version we arrived at after lengthy discussion (see above). If there are issues with this version, let's discuss here. I reread Lee et al. 2011, and added some solid content to emphasize this source in the research section. Lee et al. 2011 does not explicitly make conclusions about medical consensus, and does not state that "the effectiveness of qigong is unproven based on the standards for evidence based medicine". Rather, this source provides a carefully worded conclusion that we quote. Does anybody know of a specific source about medical consensus concerning qigong (ideally an NIH panel)? Could we focus work on strengthening the research section, including basic research and reviews since 2010. Yobol, can you offer us insight and sources that support reworking the body and/or lead? Also could you please offer input on the outline and scope of the article? Thanks. TheProfessor (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The quote is awkward and I have restored the previous version. As a summary of the research section, it is clear that none of the systematic reviews were able to draw any firm conclusions due to the poor quality of research. I am not sure what the objection to the rewrite of the lead is. Yobol (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yobol. Thanks for discussing this. I appreciate you wanting to emphasize "the best available evidence" and to paraphrase the quote. This changes the tone and emphasis of Lee et al. 2011 and the systematic reviews, in particular your wording "no firm conclusions can be drawn about any health effects", which can be construed as not following NPOV. Simply put, it appears to be an intentional shift in emphasis to make a case, in a way that polarizes. This is also the case in the body under "Medical Consensus", where the changes made to the sentence attributed to Lee et al. are very different in emphasis and even specific content than what Lee et al. actually wrote. The quoted version does not run risk of reinterpretation and re-emphasis because it is the author's actual words. I'm fine with paraphrasing if we can reach agreement on a version that is faithful to Lee et al. 2011. Otherwise we need to stay with a quote. I'll go ahead and try a little edit with attention to NPOV. TheProfessor (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm not understanding the NPOV complaint, as I think my summary is just a re-wording of the conclusion of the paper. However, I have tweaked your paraphrasing, using similar structure and made some grammatical changes. I hope this version can find everyone's approval. Yobol (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yobol, for working together on this. Looks good. TheProfessor (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Jahnke, yet again

Hi professor. this edit where you added discussion of "positive results" found by Jahnke is not happy. I know you are aware of the discussion of this source, and I saw that you tried to deal with that by being explicit in the text that the study was not critical. Nonetheless we cannot relativize the science - we cannot give equal WP:WEIGHT to Jahnke and Lee. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I understand the concern to be attentive to WP:WEIGHT concerning Jahnke et al. 2010 and Lee et al. 2011. The two are not equivalent or interchangeable in terms of what they present. As a comprehensive review, Jahnke reports the number of RCTs, and the categories of conditions with positive effects, support for grouping results of qigong and tai chi studies, and of also importantly does not assess quality beyond peer-reviewed English-journal RCTs. The systematic reviews apply to specific conditions and are not comprehensive. The Lee overview applies to assessing the quality of systematic reviews. Additional systematic reviews have been published since Lee 2011, and have not been evaluated for their quality. It is highly relevant that although the comprehensive review found 77 RCTs, with positive effects in 9 categories of health conditions, subsequent comprehensive reviews found most clinical research to be of poor quality because of small sample size and inadequate experimental design, with high risk of bias. This is not a case of "relative" science. In discussion of this source the value with qualification was emphasized. By your argument about WP:WEIGHT, does that also mean we should reduce or eliminate the text of the systematic reviews in favor of only Lee? They give other important details, but the most relevant are covered in Lee. TheProfessor (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

On another note, how are you with the structure and content of the research section, other than Jahnke? Eventually, I would hope to flesh this section out with historical context and basic research, and a good edit to be clear and concise. The systematic reviews could be summarized (there are more to include), and the text made more clear. If the section gets too big, it might make sense to start a separate qigong research article. Would you still be opposed to mored details of Jahnke, Lee, and the reviews there? TheProfessor (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

last thing first -- generally this is shaping up well. As to the question about detail and the questions about Jahnke. I want to summon the spirit of Wikipedia in general here. We aim for Plain English and with regard to health content, we want clear messages. Getting very very sophisticated in the text about the quality of reviews, as the text you wrote this morning, is - while very scholarly - missing the boat in terms of what Wikipedia is up to. We look to the best sources and we express them, as clearly and simply as we can without obliterating what is grey. Bringing in this extra level, that Lee is rigorous and Jahnke is sloppy, goes beyond what we do in the content. We do that back here, in the Talk pages, when and only when we need to walk though how policy/guidelines apply to sources. As we have already discussed, Jahnke is useful for describing the breadth of research, not for evaluating it. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the need for clarity, and the spirit of Wikipedia, which is where I am also coming from. Jahnke is the best source for examining patterns within the comprehensive cross-section of RCTs, in particular major categories of RCTs with positive results (something the other sources can not do), but not for evaluating quality beyond peer-review RCT (not "sloppy" vs "rigorous", per se). It is highly relevant to state the 9 categories of RCTs that found positive effects. Otherwise it is giving a conclusion without context, and in your words "obliterating the gray". Thanks. TheProfessor (talk)

I am getting weird echoes of CJ here. If I cannot see out the window, I cannot say what colors the flowers in the front yard are. If the trial design is poor, no conclusion can be drawn from it - you cannot see the result. It is not legitimate to leverage "positive" into the article, on the back of a non-systematic review. This is exactly what we rely on reviews for and exactly why we do not cite primary sources. A review that doesn't evaluate the quality of the sources is not what MEDRS is after, especially when there is a review published later, that does evaluate the sources.. this is deep in the heart of how we do things. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's pause here. This is not personal, and I'm not being obtuse. I do have a different perspective, based on my understanding of science and clean writing, and in the context of Wikipedia in general and MEDRS in particular. I'll certainly consider your perspective further. From my perspective, we made good progress in the structure and balance, and I don't want to simply "gut" Jahnke where it has value, i.e., I would keep a bit more - it is still the best source for looking at patterns in the cross-section of RCTs. TheProfessor (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. And I agree it is not personal. What kind of "patterns" do you want to pull out? Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, Jahnke is a poor source on the effectiveness of qigong for the reasons already stated multiple times. It should not be used to describe or imply that there are positive benefits for qigong. Yobol (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To summarize: 1) in the process of editing the Research section, I formed an initial separate Overview of clinical research subsection; 2) this overview was simplified based on WP:WEIGHT and clean Wikipedia editing (with significant improvement); 3) mention of positive effects in the comprehensive review was deleted, based on the argument that this source did not evaluate research quality (certainly not a systematic review, but not entirely true in that the review used 4 inclusion criteria: peer-review English, cited in health science literature, test effects of qigong or tai chi, and explicit RCT design). The overview of systematic reviews was subsequently published and takes precedence within its scope (assessment of systematic reviews); the individual systematic reviews take precedence in their respective scopes where they are unique (assessment of clinical research for specific conditions); and the comprehensive review takes precedence for scope in which it is unique (comprehensive review of RCTs). Any mention of positive results in the comprehensive review is argued to be excluded, although mention of positive results was included from the Lee overview and systematic reviews in the more detailed text of the Systematic reviews of clinical research subsection. In abstraction (meaning not about qigong specifically, but rather any progression of clinical research discussed in Wikipedia), in the overview of clinical research I would generally favor a brief clear statement that explains the historical progression, something like "although x reported y, this is now shown to be z based on the latest greatest". Indeed much care should be used to qualify and maintain NPOV (not "leverage" POV). Again, I note mention of positive effects from the systematic reviews with qualification. Let's move on. In particular I'm considering how to best handle the Skepticism subsection (especially in view of its major overlap in content with the Research challenges subsection). TheProfessor (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear your frustration. Before I respond, you have a bit of a mixed message that I'd like to clarify. On the one hand you appear to want to discuss how we will use Jahnke; on the other hand you say "let's move on". So.. which is it? Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

What gave you the impression I am frustrated? Rather, I am still trying to understand the bigger picture as well as the intricacies. Let's save further discussion about Jahnke until later, if it's needed, and focus on the Skepticism and Research challenges subsections. I think clarity will emerge. TheProfessor (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Contraindications

I just deleted the following: "According to the official 2013 Chinese medical qigong textbook, contraindications of Qigong therapy are mostly psychiatric disorders, in particular severe schizophrenia, mania, and depression, along with some relatively minor mental illnesses, such as neurosis and anxiety, hypochondria, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.(ref name=Liu2013CMQ/)((rp|268))" in this dif. The reason is, that it appears that the CMQ textbook is basing that claim on concern about "deviation". However if you look at the English language literature, you find people doing RCTs for several psychiatic conditions, and "reporting positive results" with zero mention of these concerns. I am not saying the following are MEDRS-reliable sources) but see this and this and here is a whole book... Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've been wondering what to do with this. Lots of potentially interesting content for the Mental health subsection. Like a lot of parts of the article, the Safety and cost subsection is sparse (almost non-existent) and needs good sources and some good attention. TheProfessor (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources for initial content of Safety and cost subsection:

"As with any physical activity, people who perform tai chi or qi gong may experience muscle strains or sprains. Gentle stretching before a tai chi or qi gong session can prevent most injuries. In most cases, you can safely use tai chi or qi gong alongside conventional medical treatments. Always tell your doctor if you are using an alternative therapy or if you are thinking about combining an alternative therapy with your conventional medical treatment. It may not be safe to forgo your conventional medical treatment and rely only on an alternative therapy." (Web MD, http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/tc/tai-chi-and-qi-gong-topic-overview)

"In a recent review addressing Tai Chi and Qigong research among older adults, it was pointed out that no adverse events were reported across studies.¹²⁵ The substantial potential for achieving health benefits, the minimal cost incurred by this form of self-care, and the apparent safety of implementation across populations, points to the importance of wider implementation and dissemination." (Jahnke et al. 2010) (125 = Rogers CE, Larkey LK, Keller C, West J. A review of clinical trials of tai chi and qigong in older adults. Nurs Res. 2009 Mar; 31(2):245-79.)

Research challenges, Proponents and Skeptics

I merged the former Skepticism subsection into Research challenges, Scientific Basis, and IM/CAM subsections. I'm reluctant to build a strawman proponent vs skeptic backdrop for the article, but rather want to stay with major contemporary views. I see Research challenges as mostly about the ability to distinguish real effects from artifacts, and the fundamental issue of how we conduct scientific inquiry. TheProfessor (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Organization and Scope

Could we please discuss the order of the article from an overall perspective? Below is what I recommend at present. I'm struggling with the order within Research section. TheProfessor (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Qigong Article Outline - draft, 17-Mar-2014

1 Qigong basics

1.1 Etymology

1.2 History and origins

2 Practices, forms, and techniques

2.1 Practices

2.2 Forms

2.3 Techniques

3 Traditional and classical theory

3.1 Chinese Medical Qigong

3.2 Daoist Qigong

3.3 Buddhist Qigong

3.4 Confucian Qigong

4 Contemporary views

4.1 Contemporary Chinese medical qigong

4.2 Conventional medicine

4.3 Integrative, complementary, and alternative medicine

4.4 Scientific basis

5 Health applications

5.1 Recreation and popular use

5.2 Therapeutic use

5.3 Safety and cost

6 Meditation and self-cultivation applications

7 Martial arts applications

8 Research

8.1 Overview of clinical research

8.2 Systematic reviews of clinical research

8.3 Mental health research

8.4 Research in China

8.5 Challenges for research

9 Conclusion

TheProfessor (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with two issues I have: 1) The location of the research section should be near the health applications section, as the research is all health related. It only makes sense that the two are next to each other (I would suggest moving it to right after it). An alternative is that since the research is all health related, it be made a subsection of the Health applicatoins section (5.3, with safety and cost moved to 5.4). #2 Is I do not believe I have seen any other Wikipedia article have a "Conclusion" section. It does not seem encyclopedic to me. Yobol (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Yobol. You make good points. I'm open and still contemplating the options. Let's consider carefully how this affects the balance and future development of the article. 1) Although moving Research (or part called Effectiveness) to 5.4 could be a good option for keeping health applications together, this unbalances the Meditation and self-cultivation applications and the Martial arts applications sections - which still have to be fleshed out. And there is relevant research for meditation that would also mostly be health research. It could eventually make sense to split off a separate Qigong research article. At this stage I still favor placing Research after Applications, although in previous versions of the outline I suggested placing Research under the Scientific Basis subsection under Contemporary views (see Contemporary Views - Detailed Outline, 2-March-2014 and 4-March-2014 above). I've been grappling with this for some time, and value your input. 2) Although I'm reluctant to dismantle the Conclusion, which I think is clear and helpful, it could readily be redistributed between the Lead, History and origins, and Contemporary views. TheProfessor (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not married to the exact location, though I do feel strongly the research section should be next to the health section (if not in the health section) due to the relevance of the two to each other. If meditation or martial arts related research can be found, we can then split off those research sections could be then incorporated into the appropriate sections. As to the conclusion section, it just seems out of place in an encyclopedia (specifically this one, as I don't think I have ever seen it here). I would support moving the material to the appropriate related subsections. 15:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we move Research after Health applications for now, and consider summarizing the main points under Scientific basis or a Effectiveness subsection under Health applications. I agree with you about the Conclusion, so I went ahead and incorporated its content back in the lead, History and origins, and Contemporary views. Please let me know what you think. TheProfessor (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Negative coverage from Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology

I know not everyone is going to agree with what it said, but Oxford University Press is a notable publisher, so if they say something negative, shouldn't we at least acknowledge the fact that they've said it (and if others can show it's wrong then say this as well), rather than simply ignore it? The book is Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology, 2nd edition (2010). I was given this book by a Chinese post-graduate student in Cambridge who was getting rid of her textbooks when she was leaving; she had written quite a lot of notes in the book, so she had obviously considered it important while studying. In chapter 22 page 368 I found a statement that practicing Qigong can give symptoms of mental disorders. That seems to me to be a claim that should either be confirmed or denied (but not ignored). So I added it to the article, in the hope that other editors more familiar with the subject can add other sources to either confirm or deny it. But I was reverted as "unclear, not well sourced". I didn't understand the meaning of "not well sourced" here (I thought it means "you haven't stated what your source is", whereas I had stated what my source was, so I thought maybe the reversion was a mistake), so I tried again with different words (this time including the note that no further details were given in the book), but this time I was reverted as "not a reliable source for health-related information". That puzzles me because (1) isn't Oxford, like, really famous? yes I know they're not infallible, but wouldn't they pass Wikipedia's threshold of a "good enough" source at least to mention in an article on any subject? and (2) isn't psychology a bit less rigorous than biomedicine? (I'm aware that there are lots of Wikipedia policies for sources about biomedicine that I haven't managed to read through yet, but my understanding is that these apply specifically to biomedicine and not other types of health-related information such as psychology, which, as far as I am aware, does not count as "biomedicine".) So I tried a third time, this time stating in the edit summary "Oxford are very notable publishers, so we'd better acknowledge what they say, even if they're wrong. If the reliability of that book is suspect, we should say so, not just totally ignore the viewpoint?" and adding in the edit "The reliability of this Oxford handbook has been questioned" and adding a after it (hoping that another editor would come along and fill in a reference that questions the handbook's reliability, if there is one). And that was reverted with an invitation to discuss the matter here rather than edit-warring. Hopefully everyone can understand that I didn't mean to 'edit war' - I just tried 3 times to get the wording right. And I don't have anything against Qigong (I don't know much about it), this is just a genuine attempt to note a source, which seems to me to be notable enough to be mentioned, in the hope that other editors will add other material that sheds more light on the reliability or otherwise of this famous-name source. Could somebody please either help me do this edit the right way or explain a little more clearly what's wrong with this book I've got? thanks. 128.232.254.133 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

thank you for finally coming to Talk! That is the "right" answer, per WP:BRD. This is where we work stuff out. I was one of the reverters. The issue from my perspective, is whether the mental illness is real of not. (we have an article on it, btw: Zou huo ru mo (medicine). Here is where I am coming from. The "mental illness" notion is based on the idea that "Qi" is real, and that Qigong is a powerful way to manipulate Qi, and if you use Qigong wrong, you will get hurt. Like... overdosing on a drug will hurt you, like eating grapefruit when you are taking certain medications can hurt you. Do you see what I mean? For a while, folks in the developed world tried to treat this as a kind of culturally-bound mental illness, but that notion was and is very controversial. It was introduced in the DSM-IV and was removed in the DSM-V. So this has nothing to do with "hiding" anything. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense now. I wonder if it's a good idea to say, at the end of the "mental health research" section, "For details of research into the alleged psychological disorders associated with Qigong, see the article qigong deviation" . (There is already such a link in the article, but it's buried in the middle of a paragraph of prose in the History section.) Also, I wonder if the qigong deviation article should note the fact that it was removed in the DSM-V (there's a discussion of DSM-IV but no mention that it was removed in DSM-V). 128.232.254.133 (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a complicated issue. I think it is important that this is respectful, but at the same time, anything health-related needs to have a source that complies with WP:MEDRS. I have it on my to-do list to search for MEDRS-compliant sources that discusses this issue but haven't invested the time yet. I want to do that for two reasons: 1) to learn more about it and make sure I understand it correctly (you should always let reliable sources teach you instead of going and looking for support for something you already "know") and 2) to have good-enough sources to cite in WP. Nobody else has done that yet either. .... if you want to do that, great! I should also say, that I have an notion (which may be wrong) that some of the way this concept has actually played out in China, is as a tool for the Chinese gov't to crack down on Falun Gong - as an excuse to "hospitalize" people. (see here and here for example) Not sure that is true, but I found suggestions of this that i didn't have time to track down when I looked at this the first time. To the extent that is true, it adds to the complication of determining what is true and what is not (there will be a lot of noise in the data), and makes it all the more important that we use truly great sources and follow them closely. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford Handbooks are a highly trusted source of information - I've used the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine myself so I can vouch for its reliability, although I note that the one you cited is not a handbook on psychology in general so we should make it clear that the statement only represents the viewpoint of Chinese psychology specifically, and not the entire field of psychology. -A1candidate (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

i understand in general that oxford handbooks are great. i am really dubious about this "chinese psychology" one ... to be frank it sounds vaguely racist. From a review: "This handbook will be highly valuable for cross-cultural management scholars who wish to dig deeper into the mysterious Chinese world." ugh. orientalism, anyone? is there a "german pyschology" or an "african psychology"? and as you point out A1, it is not "psychology" per se. i do understand that the volume is handy for the OP but handy doesn't mean great. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

According to this review of the book:

What we might term mainstream Anglo-Saxon psychology has expended considerable resources to demonstrate decontextualizable, mechanical, ‘objective’ and universal principles of psychology that apply to all cultures. Proponents of this endeavor assume that current psychological theories are universally applicable. The new Oxford handbook demonstrates the limitations of that approach. The authors show that psychological theories are culturally bound and value-laden and that each culture should be understood from its own point of reference, including its own historical, philosophical, political and religious contexts.

-A1candidate (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Complementary and alternative medicine

Hi User:Roxy the dog and User:Sunrise. I note that you changed "complementary and alternative medicine" to "alternative medicine". Note that this is in reference to content that explicitly distinguishes "complementary and alternative medicine". While we could just leave this unlinked or only link the alternative medicine part of the term, I would favor linking the entire term. Please refer to the NIH definition this is based upon. TheProfessor (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not favour using the weasel word "complementary". Alternative is what is meant, and what should remain. The NIH definition that you refer to was written by woosters, not mainstream at all, and is not reliable imho. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Complementary and alternative" is what was meant in the text:

Integrative medicine (IM) refers to "the blending of conventional and complementary medicines and therapies with the aim of using the most appropriate of either or both modalities to care for the patient as a whole", whereas complementary generally refers to "using a non-mainstream approach together with conventional medicine", and alternative refers to "using a non-mainstream approach in place of conventional medicine". Qigong is used by integrative medicine practitioners to complement conventional medical treatment, based on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interpretations of the effectiveness and safety of qigong.

Let's not get into a discussion about opinions. This is valid and correct use of terminology.TheProfessor (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing 'Scientific Basis'

I have edited this section, because it implied that there have been 'experimental setting[s]' of an acceptable standard that have not 'verified' 'the existence of qi'. If the lead is true then there have only been 'poor quality clinical studies', so that does not give the basis to imply that good clinical studies have failed to find the existence of qi. Jabberwock359 (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The lack of studies is about the efficacy of qigong, not about the existence of "qi". There is no scientific evidence such a concept actually exists. Yobol (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"Manhattan" picture

The picture used an example of qigong on World Tai Chi Day in Manhattan is a picture of an Eternal Spring Chi Kung Class by the Tai Chi Chuan Center founded by Grandmaster C.K. Chu (1937-2013) and run by teachers trained at CK Chu Tai Chi (www.ckchutaichi.com). World Tai Chi Day kicks off the center's 5 month free Bryant Park Tai Chi Classes - Eternal Spring Class taught Tuesday and Thursday morning 7:30 to 8:30 am. Could this be noted? Thank you

---

Jeremy W. Hubbell Director Ck Chu Tai Chi jeremy@ckchutaichi.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.84.49 (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Qigong vs Taichi

Even though many scholars believe one is a subset of the other, it is still being taught to this day that they are equal and different with Taichi taking it's core philosophies from Qigong.58.249.112.81 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 not done "student in university" is not a reliable secondary source Edaham (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References