Today I received an email from a professional group I
have respected in the past. They invited me to attend a session about qigong training for parents. I am
somewhat startled about this, especially because this group, like others of its
kind, is supposed to be alert to the evidentiary foundations of methods they
recommend. They need not restrict themselves entirely to evidence-based
treatments, because there may be perfectly good treatments that have not yet
been thoroughly researched, but they should not be suggesting methods that are
neither research-based nor plausible. They apparently don’t know this.
Qigong
is
a method that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
classes as a “putative energy therapy”. This classification indicates that qigong is said by its proponents to
involve a field of energy (qi) that
fills the body and surrounds it, but this energy is not electricity, light, or
heat, and is not measurable by any physical means. Qi is thought not only to surround and fill the body, but to flow
dynamically along meridians or pathways that connect body parts. If qi movement is blocked, there is
resulting pain or distress. Of course, the distress experienced by the individual
is the only thing that indicates to proponents that there is blockage of qi, or indeed that there is qi at all, since it cannot be measured.
Like many other “energy” methods, qigong is claimed to be an ancient tradition handed down for
centuries. Although the practice does use traditional Chinese philosophical
systems and meridian charts, the anthropologist David Palmer, in his 2007 book,
dated current qigong practices to
1949. The method was created by a Chinese political functionary as a body training
technique combining breathing techniques, meditation, and gymnastics—with the
traditional belief systems omitted. In the 1950s, qigong became popular in China as political objections to foreign
influences developed and there was new encouragement of Chinese traditions.
In the 1970s, however, a new group of qigong masters began to claim that they
could “externalize” their qi , focus
it on patients, and cure them, even at a great distance. Followers began to
experience trances, “holy rolling”, and speaking in tongues, much as
charismatic Christians sometimes do. Participants no longer needed to achieve
skills in qigong themselves, but could depend on a master to heal them. The
Chinese government began to find these activities embarrassing and tried to
suppress them, leading to emigration of qigong
masters to the West.
There have been some attempts to demonstrate
systematic evidence for the effectiveness of qigong (for example, a 2010 study by Oh et al). Unfortunately, like studies of other unconventional treatments I
have mentioned on this blog, the research on qigong failed to isolate the variable being tested. For example, in
the Oh study of the effect of qigong on
fatigue and mood of cancer patients, patients were randomized either to a group
that met twice a week for 90-minute qigong
sessions, or to a “usual care” group that did not meet. This means that any
differences between the groups may be due to social contact, to expectations,
to the relationship with the leader, to effects on their qi, or to all these factors or many others.
The existence of qi,
an undetectable entity, is not plausible, and attempts to manipulate qi have not received the appropriate
testing that might or might not establish an evidentiary foundation for the
practice. So—does that mean that training parents in qigong is a bad idea? It’s true that doing qigong will probably not hurt anyone directly, so in that sense the
practice is a harmless one, however implausible. However, there are a number of
problems associated with encouraging parents to believe unlikely methods or explanations.
One is that parents who are convinced that they know the secret way to health for
their child may reject conventional medical help when it is badly needed (yes,
I’m talking about Christian Scientists too). Another problem is that parents caught up in
unconventional treatments may be unduly influenced by practitioners whom they
admire, and may be unable to realize that they have been drawn into a cult that
can have ill effects both on their children and on themselves. To state just
one further point: of course, no one expects either conventional or
unconventional practitioners to give their services for free, and parents
involved with unconventional and ineffective treatments may find at the last
that they have no resources to use for effective treatments.
How curious that science has been able to detect faint radiation from distant galaxies, but no one has been able to find this "human energy field." (HEF). Except that qigong masters, Reiki masters, and nurses practicing Therapeutic Touch (TT) claim to feel it and manipulate it with their hands.
ReplyDeleteAs a nurse, I noticed TT getting popular back in the 1980s, and I began to wonder if a hands-off practice appealed because of the onset of the AIDS epidemic when so many feared touching patients.
Later, my daughter Emily was curious about the claim that nurses could feel something when they did TT and thought about doing her science fair experiment on TT. She came up with a good protocol, and the TT practitioners failed the test. It got written up here:
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187390
So if anyone claims they can manipulated the HEF for any sort of therapeutic benefit, see if they can even feel it. All you need is a towel, a coin, and piece of cardboard to put their claims to the test.