The Spiritual Context of Acupuncture, and Definining
Basic Terms
A Discussion between Brian
B. Carter, MSci, LAc,
and Marcia Montenegro, Christian and former new-ager
Marcia,
Do you remember me? I called in last year when you were on (name deleted
for anonymity) radio show.
Did you ever read my
response to your writings about acupuncture?
I find it hard to understand how you can leave inaccuracies on your
site without any pangs of conscience.
It is patently untrue that even at the time of your writing 3/2000
"no medical or biological basis as been discovered for acupuncture."
I have scientific studies that contradict that statement. And more info
has been uncovered since then.
I just read Elliot Miller's article
the other day- This is a complex issue... there are certainly new-agers,
taoists, and buddhists who attach their beliefs to acupuncture. Chinese
Medicine originated in that culture... their beliefs are either right
or wrong. You and I as Christians know they are wrong.
So there is some other explanation as to why acupuncture works. If
you want to learn the truth about how acupuncture works biomedically,
go here.
Are you aware that Western Medicine came from Greece, a pantheon of
gods, and that the Hippocratic Oath to which MD's still swear includes
two of those greek gods? That the caduceus (symbol of western medicine)
is also derived from pagan gods from Greece? That there are 4 places
in the New Testament that forbid the use of pharamaceuticals? (pharmakos,
pharmakeia, etc.) If you want more about this, read pastor Mark Virkler's
Restoring Healthcare as a Ministry. It's a free
book for download online.
Why don't you apply the same skepticism to western medicine?
All the best,
Brian
You called me a skeptic. I am not a skeptic at all! A skeptic is
someone who does not believe in something. I never have denied that
alt. healing does not work - that is not the issue I discuss on my site
I would please like an apology and am asking for you to remove that
statement. I am asking you as a fellow believer to apologize for doing
this.
Marcia
Hi Marcia,
Hope you are well. I respect what you've done in trying to counter
new age... I am on the front lines there myself.
As a fellow believer, I would ask you to reconsider what you've stated
on your
site, and to repair the inaccuracies. I feel very strongly that
what you are doing with that part of your website is somewhat careless
and perhaps destructive. I plead with you to take another look at that!
As Christians we are supposed to be known
for our love for one another... I want to do
that here and also seek the truth. Hope you
can agree with me on that.
All the best,
Brian
Hello, Brian,
If there is a medical basis for acupuncture, then it disproves the
philosophy of acupuncture which is to unblock the chi energy and balance
yin and yang. It can't be both ways. Either acupuncture does what it
claims to do -- which is to balance the yin and yang forces (which requires
a belief in those forces) or it is working on some kind of biological
basis, in which case it is disproving the claims of acupuncture. Large
studies done on a number of people apparently so far have only shown
that it sometimes relieves pain temporarily, and the biological and
medical basis is still unknown.
Some scholars believe the caduceus originated from the bronze serpent
in Numbers 21. (I just did a research paper on the serpent in the Pentateuch).
Whatever the origin of modern medicine may be it is based on objective
science (even if not always used correctly, but that's a human fault).
I know about the Hipp. Oath, that it was based on gods. That has nothing
to do with whether medicine is valid scientifically or not. Also, most
medical schools have already changed the wording and many don't even
use it anymore. I recently had to look this up so I know about this.
The passages in the NT that use the word pharmakopeia, Ga. 5:20,Rev.
18:23, Rev. 21:8, Rev. 22:15, are talking about potions which are used
in sorcery and the occult. That is why the word is translated as magic
or sorcery. I'm surprised you don't know that.
I have never claimed Western medicine is perfect. But just because
it isn't, it doesn't make acupuncture and other alternative energy healing
techniques okay or valid.
Cordially,
Marcia
Marcia,
It'd be easier for me if you just read my
responses, but since you prefer email, I'll answer you here...
Yes there is a medical basis for acupuncture.
No it doesn't disprove the theories of qi, yin,
and yang. I can explain why... but first you
have to understand what those things are.
They are not "universal forces" in the sense that
they are intelligent or spiritual or demonic or
anything like that. They are concepts. Yin and
Yang are literally opposites... it's a conceptual
framework for dividing things- like hot and cold,
light and dark, male and female, strong and weak,
fire and water- those examples are all yang and yin
respectively.
So to say that light can be explained scientifically
means that it's not yang... is wrong. They are simply
different viewpoints. Light is yang (dark is yin) whether
there is a scientific explanation for light or not. In
the same way, the color blue is a specific light
frequency; once you know that frequency, you don't
say, "well it's no longer blue then." They're totally
different non-exclusive viewpoints.
Qi is honestly more difficult for me to explain. First of
all, there are some 29 meanings of qi... it's kind of a
catch-all term. It's really a concept that doesn't
mean energy in an electrical or spiritual sense,
but in a physics sense... you know how an object
on an incline that is not moving yet has 'potential
energy'? Qi is like that. But it is also the momentum
once it starts moving... It means 'ability to change.'
But this ability, energy, etc. is not distinct from what
we already know... just as in yin yang above. When
they say food has qi, they mean that the body can
use it for its own purposes. Food qi was their
way of looking at the energy we get from the
digestion of food.
The Chinese system of medicine was developed
from observation... not from cutting open dead
bodies (because of cultural taboo against that). So
they had to come up with theories that way. They
didn't have microscopes, etc. All that is really really
new in human history. I would agree with the scientists
that it would be best if we could take all the
Chinese Medicine (CM) and run it through the labs and
studies and figure out how it works in biomedical
terms... they begun to do this, but it's going to take
a long long time before it's converted. The studies
show, and experience does too, that CM is
effective in many situations, especially some in which
biomedicine can't do anything. So it's worth keeping
and working on, I think.
You're right that western medicine coming from
Greek culture or being imperfect doesn't make
Chinese Medicine right... that would be horrible logic
on my part. I was just trying to point out that the
culture of origin may have an effect on the
practitioners, or color the way they think the medicine
works, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have
a boimedical explanation. I was objecting that
the kind of treatment you gave Chinese Medicine
was not equally given to western medicine on your
site.
Hmm, I've read all kinds of things lately, that makes
me question if western medicine really is based on
science. I know it's supposed to be, and often is,
but we can't have blind faith that all the studies are
accurate, that the researchers are not biased... etc.
Sometimes a company will do 5 studies before 2 of
them show safety... and even though 3/5 were
not safe, the drug still passes... When medicine
must walk the fine line between altruism and money,
how could it not happen? The business model
that biomed runs on dictates certain choices in
medicine... and that doesn't leave everyone open for
the adaptability to truth that the scientific method
requires. I've also read of people going back and
trying to check up on the data of certain studies
and finding out that the data was lost or destroyed...
or the analysis was full of errors. Honestly, finding
this out leaves me a bit adrift... I am one of the most
evidence-based CM people I know... and if so
many studies are flawed, then WHAT do we base
our clinical decisions on?
Chinese Medicine is based on science as well...
practitioners for centuries followed the scientific method
in their own clinics. It is true that the quality of studies
has not been as high, but that is changing. The
lack of societal integration and poverty of China
made it impossible for them to do anything like
the modern Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).
There are lesser studies that give some indication
of the truth... and when you have a practitioner who
is 90% effective and placebo is only 30-40%, you
know they're doing something right!
Anyhow, there are some good studies on how
acu works- and I've seen it work more than temporarily...
unless years are temporary to you. And it's way
more than just endorphins. My test is always that
the pain must be gone for more than 3 days, the
length of effectiveness of enkephalins.
From medline:
1997 NIH statement: "Many studies in animals and humans have
demonstrated
that acupuncture can cause multiple biological responses. These responses
can occur locally, i.e., at or close to the site of application, or
at a
distance, mediated mainly by sensory neurons to many structures within
the
central nervous system. This can lead to activation of pathways affecting
various physiological systems in the brain as well as in the periphery.
A
focus of attention has been the role of endogenous opioids in acupuncture
analgesia. Considerable evidence supports the claim that opioid peptides
are
released during acupuncture and that the analgesic effects of acupuncture
are at least partially explained by their actions. That opioid antagonists
such as naloxone reverse the analgesic effects of acupuncture further
strengthens this hypothesis. Stimulation by acupuncture may also
a.. activate the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland, resulting in
a
broad spectrum of systemic effects
b.. Alteration in the secretion of neurotransmitters and neurohormones
and
changes in the regulation of blood flow, both centrally and peripherally,
have been documented.
c.. There is also evidence of alterations in immune functions produced
by
acupuncture. Which of these and other physiological changes mediate
clinical
effects is at present unclear."
* From the same source: "Findings from basic research have begun
to
elucidate the mechanisms of action of acupuncture, including the release
of
opioids and other peptides in the central nervous system and the periphery
and changes in neuroendocrine function. Although much needs to be
accomplished, the emergence of plausible mechanisms for the therapeutic
effects of acupuncture is encouraging."
* One of the studies cited by the NIH was conducted by Abass Alavi,
M.D.,
chief of nuclear medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Medical
Center,
who showed that acupuncture affects the flow of blood in the brain.
He used
SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) to view the brains
of
four people with pain and five pain-free people who served as the control
group. Dr. Alavi found that after acupuncture needles were inserted,
all of
the patients had increased blood flow to the thalamus, the area of the
brain
that relays pain and other sensory messages. Because the brains of the
pain-free group showed the same reactions as those with pain, the changes
in
blood flow couldn't be attributed to placebo.
* "The phenomenon of acupuncture is both complex and dynamic.
Recent
information demonstrates that acupuncture may exert its actions on pain
and
immune processes. The coupling of these two systems occurs via common
signaling molecules, i.e., opioid peptides. In this regard, we surmise
that
a.. opioid activation leads to the processing of opioid peptides from
their precursor, proenkephalin, and
b.. the simultaneous release of antibacterial peptides contained within
the precursor as well. Thus,
c.. central nervous system pain circuits may be coupled to immune
enhancement.
d.. Furthermore, acupuncture needle manipulation elicited signal increases
bilaterally in the region of the primary and secondary somatosensory
corticies in human brain as determined by magnetic resonance imaging.
e.. The maps reveal marked signal decreases bilaterally in multiple
limbic
and deep gray structures including the nucleus accumbens, amygdala,
hypothalamus, hippocampus, and ventral tegmental area.
f.. Taken together, we surmise a major central nervous system pathway
as
well as local pain and immune modulation during acupuncture." -
1999 Review
* "In recent years, more and more laboratory proof has accumulated
that
acupuncture can
a.. change the charge and potential of neurons,
b.. the concentrations of K(+), Na(+), Ca(++) and
c.. the content of neuro-transmitters such as aspartate, and taurine
and
d.. the quantities of neuro-peptides such as beta-endorphin and
leu-enkephalin.
e.. All these phenomena are directly related to nerve cells." -
source
My understanding is that many standard biomedical
therapies have not gone through the RCT either.
And that drugs are tested for safety first and then
MAYBE for efficacy.
Hmm. I suppose that just in the same way that
you could debate about the origins of the caduceus,
you could debate about the meaning of 'potions.'
Mark Virkler, who I mentioned, sees it as
man-made medicine... that is, drugs. If there must
be some spiritual or religious intent for it to be a
potion, then both drugs and chinese herbs are
off the hook.
Marcia, I appreciate your responses, and would
love to continue. My understandings and questions
here are everything, because the last thing I want
to do is be involved in the wrong thing. When I
got saved, I wondered if I should change career
paths. But then my fiance suggested that maybe
God wanted me there, where new-agey and lost
people would come, so that I could witness to them.
I had a woman write me recently from my
Christianacupuncture.com site... she was
concerned if it was wrong to take her son to
this new-agey acupuncturist. Among other things
like telling her she should ask the acu what his deal
was and if he did anything spiritual toward his patients,
I asked her if she wasn't sure that God didn't want
her to witness to him... maybe the acu needs
to get saved!
Blessings,
B
Hi, Brian --- Chi is considered an energy or force. Whether it exists
or not, the philosophy behind it is very hostile to the Biblical God.
Have you read my article on yin and yang? The philosophy behind this
is that yin and yang are constantly moving into and merging with each
other, so there are actually no opposites and no absolutes. In fact,
this philosophy denies good and evil -- I have the quotes in my article.
I am very familiar with this as I used to believe in this kind of thinking
for years. I know what the ideas are. One can try to change the definition
or mitigate it, but it doesn't change what yin and yang mean as part
of the taoist worldview.
Right, many other religious have different definitions of evil, or
don't believe it exists- but again, it's a matter of context. Sometimes
we say light or dark and mean good or evil. Other times we mean physical
light or darkness. Light and dark actually change meaning depending
on context. So do yin and yang. In Chinese medicine, they are simply
categories, not forces. You may describe the digestive ability of the
body (Spleen Qi) as being more yang than yin, and yes, the digestion
has a force, or power, or ability- but not a spiritual one. It is not
some spirituality that makes you digest your food. It is Spleen Qi,
which may include such things as enzymes and stomach acid.
I see what you're saying (about scientific investigation of CM
theories) but again, I followed this kind of thinking for years, and
the way chi is defined and used in alternative energy healing is very
spiritual.
My statements about the healing methods I mention are based on
the spiritual context that surrounds them. And it's not just reading
about this -- remember I was into this thinking for most of my adult
life, which was quite a long time.
(Science is) not a matter of blind faith. I think we know how aspirin
works, how certain medicines work, how breaking a bone causes certain
things, etc. Of course, it's based on science. In experimental medicine,
it's a different story of course, but that's why it's called experimental.
Actually, we used aspirin for decades before we had any idea how it
worked. It's a common misconception to think that we know scientifically
how common medical treatments work. We knew that it worked and that
it was safe - safe enough to be used without a prescription. But we
didn't wait til we had the science to use it. And conversely, they just
found at that the commonly used arthroscopic knee surgery works no better
than the placebo effect.
I have never claimed that all Chinese medicine is wrong. If certain
herbs are known to have certain effects, that's scientific. I'm talking
about energy healing.
But, Brian, I have never argued that acupuncture does not work
in all cases. I just don't go by the view that if it works it is okay
if there is also a spiritual context involved. And there is.
Check out any commentary. It is clearly meant in conjunction with
the practice of sorcery; that was how those things were used then --
potions that were probably taken from plants. Medicinal plants are drugs.
Othewise, you are claiming every Bible translator and commentator is
wrong and that you know more than them. You should check it out. Do
a word study; read commentaries on those passages by serveral scholars.
So you were doing acupuncture before you were saved?
I don't think God asks us to participate in something that might
be spiritually wrong in order to witness. For one thing, it could confuse
the person we witness to. I have witnessed to witches, New Agers, satanists,
Goths, etc. but I do not myself participate in anything wrong to do
it. I would not, for example, participate in a Wiccan ceremony (I have
before I was saved) in order to witness.
Well, thanks for your thoughts and comments, Brian.
in Christ, Marcia
Again, as in the other interchange with the
former new-age Pastor, you are attached to what some people think
about acupuncture. Let me use some examples to show how absurd this
is:
Suppose everyone thought that aspirin worked because of the power of
the great god Pharmakos - should we not take aspirin? If it is like
Paul's discussion of food sacrified to idols, then we should only take
it when it does not make someone think we believe in Pharmakos.
If most basketball players thought they won because of voodoo power
(from a recent credit card commercial with New Orleans' Jamal Mashburn),
should we avoid all basketballs?
The spiritual context you say surrounds acupuncture is only in the
minds of some- not all practitioners, not all patients, not all Christians.
So what percentage do we have to have before it's too much? If 51% think
it's occult? Or if just 1 person thinks that?
|
