Glad to hear from you and to know there’s someone in a position such as your representing this point of view!

I suppose what I am saying is that I do not believe that Chinese medicine works for the reasons that it claims, and that there are perfectly logical, scientific reasons for how it works. Likewise, I am not disagreeing with your hypothesis that the ideas of Chinese Medicine have been wildly distorted, but I question whether it is for the reasons that you claim.

Cheers.

SO glad I stumbled onto your site from a comment another “skeptic” site that was hardly as informative. Really enjoying all the posts I’ve read so far.

I’ve experienced great physical and health benefits from yoga and recently taken up qigong practice on my own and was under the impression that its basis is moving “energy” (or whatever you want to call it) from the dan tien. Yet one of the quotes you list above says “there is no evidence… that qi as energy that moves around exists.” Excuse my ignorance but is my understanding of how qigong works incorrect or is it just that there is no scientific evidence to prove it?

Also, would you be so kind as to suggest a particular system and book/video/instructor of qigong that seems most effective? The more I research the more confused I get — the information available to us here seems woefully inadequate and largely opinionated nonsense. All this stuff about high-level vs. low-level qigong, and that certain forms can be dangerous to practice sounds like a bunch of hooey on the surface. I know everyone has their opinion but I’m more inclined to trust yours having read your writing. Thanks.

Great to hear from a fellow practitioner willing to question the TCM dogma!

Wang Shujin is a legend in Chinese internal arts. His book is a good place to start.

Thanks for your comment. I’ll be addressing several of the points you raise in the next article, which should go up tomorrow or Tuesday.

First, it’s important to note that I’m not talking about a biomedical interpretation of acupuncture and Chinese medicine (although I will cover that in a future article). I’m talking about a historically accurate interpretation based on what is found in the authoritative classic texts, such as the Huangdi Neijing. The energy meridian version of Chinese medicine we study in school is a western creation inspired by the mistranslations of a French bank clerk.

This is not simply my opinion or the opinion of a single individual. It’s widely agreed upon by the most prominent scholars of Chinese medicine, both in China and outside of China. Here’s a selection of quotes:

“It is a fact that more than 95 percent of all literature published in western languages on Chinese medicine reflect western expectations rather than Chinese historical reality.”

“The core Chinese concept of qi bears no resemblance to the Western concept of ‘energy’.”

- Paul Unschuld, historian of Chinese medicine

“Qi is “certainly not equivalent to the Western term ‘energy’.”

- Claus Schnorrenberger, historian of Chinese medicine

“Over several centuries, clinical realities that did not fit into an existing theory of Chinese medicine were often suppressed to ensure continuity of the theories, in a style that the Chinese call ‘cutting the foot to fit the shoe’. The channel/meridian theory has successfully accomplished its historical mission of preserving and developing acupuncture, though presently in the form of 14 rigid lines it has become the narrow neck of the bottle which is impeding further development of acupuncture into the 21st century.”

- Professor Huang Long-xiang, VP of Acupuncture Institute of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences in Beijing and Editor-in-Chief of Acupuncture Research and World Journal of Acupuncture

“It is now clear to those who are prepared to think and look beyond the self enclosing loops of traditional dogma that after four decades of research there is no evidence meridians exist nor that qi as energy that moves around exists. Even precise acupoints for the most part don’t exist.”

- Yun-Tao Ma, Mila Ma, Zang Hee Cho, Biomedical Acupuncture for Pain Management – An Integrative Approach

“Despite the historical evidence that it was originally meant to represent pre-modern shorthand for the vascular system, the meridian system shows up repeatedly in contemporary books and articles as supposed evidence of subtle metaphysical energy in the body.”

- Long-xiang Huang in Ma, Ma & Cho

I think the evidence is quite strong that:

1. Qi is not equivalent to energy in either a historical or modern context
2. What we refer to as meridians in the west are actually longitudinal physiological pathways including blood vessels, nerves and muscles
3. The “energy meridian” model which arose out of the mistranslation of the characters qi and mai is a uniquely western construct created primarily by the work of a single individual

As I said to begin with, this is not about explaining Chinese medicine from a biomedical perspective. It’s about explaining it from an authentic Chinese perspective.

One last thing: as you may be aware, Dr. Donald Kendall’s book The Dao of Chinese Medicine was the first book (to my knowledge) in the west to directly challenge the “energy meridian” concept. When he submitted the manuscript to Oxford University Press, they said, “We can’t print this! It contradicts everything that’s ever been printed about Chinese medicine in English so far!” Kendall told them they were welcome to poke holes in his arguments if they could. So Oxford Press submitted the manuscript to a rigorous peer review process over the next three years. They sent it to reputable scholars of Chinese medicine in China, Japan and Korea. And not a single person was able to find a flaw in his research or conclusions.

The notion that the ancient Chinese didn’t perform dissection is a common misconception. It’s completely false, as anyone who has read the Huangdi Neijing can tell you. I’m not sure why that idea is so prevalent. I heard it myself early in my education many times.

I think the reason CM doesn’t have a robust surgical or trauma medicine is that it was more focused on cultivating health than managing disease. Whereas western medicine has always been focused on treating trauma, Chinese medicine’s purpose has always been to improve quality of life and reduce morbidity.

I’ll have more to say on this in a future post in the series.

Thanks for the feedback, and stay tuned!