This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This
Meditation and self-cultivation applications
and similar subsections should be moved to the "Uses/Aims" one to avoid duplication.
I have edited one heading only, as it would take too much time to reorder.
Zezen ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the recent copyediting to the lead section remains accurate but that the sentence could be improved. The previous one also could be, so I'll enumerate and suggest another version, welcoming others to also do:
Because clinical research on qigong for its potential benefit in treating various diseases – such as hypertension, pain, and cancer – has been inconclusive due to poor quality, there remains no evidence that qigong has any therapeutic effect, as of 2016.
Clinical research on qigong to treat various health problems and diseases, such as hypertension, pain, and cancer, has been mostly inconclusive, possibly via poor quality, and as of 2016, there remains no compelling scientific evidence that qigong is effective treatment of the medical conditions studied.
While some clinical research was done to test if qigong benefited patients suffering from various diseases, low quality methodology and inconsistent results provided no conclusive evidence that qigong is effective to treat any condition.
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
the lack of compelling scientific evidence is not the same as "no evidence"it means "no conclusive evidence". — Paleo Neonate – 04:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no reliable evidence that Qigong is effective for the treatment of any condition, to closely paraphrase its cited sources: "In testing qigong to treat several conditions diagnosed in Western medicine, clinical trials have been mostly of low quality and have produced mixed results, consistently positive only for hypertension, whereby no firm conclusion can be drawn" [ diff, 09:55, 28 Aug 2020]. The sources don't concern all conditions and all reliable evidence, which are grand questions and riddles beyond the source's knowledge scope. Liberati & Vineis clarify "that EBM does not, and cannot, answer all the epistemological and practical questions surrounding the practice of medicine. On the contrary, it is important that expectations of EBM are appropriate in order to prevent conceptual and practical mistakes."[8] Further, "views of it which are too narrow have created avoidable confrontations with those who may be concerned that an 'EBM-dominated view' can do more harm than good. As efforts by methodologists have chiefly focused on how to design, conduct, and interpret studies aimed at assessing the eficacy/effectiveness of drugs, EBM is today mostly 'evidence based therapy' with robust tools—that is, randomised controlled trials—especially for assessing the worth of relatively simple interventions. The fact that we currently have limited ability to reliably assess complex interventions, preventive care in general, and diagnosis as well as prognosis, should be seen not only as the result of the greater intrinsic complexity of these areas but also as the consequence of lower intellectual investments. This is a reflection, in turn, of the more limited commercial interests at stake here" [8]. — Occurring ( talk) 15:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Didn't Indian and Chinese philosophy that some Chi energy comes up from Earth and some Chi energy comes down from Heaven [into the Yoga/Tai Chi poses ]? Need clarification for this point which came up recently in one of my groups. I have references in English, but not the original Qigong sources. Thank You D ? PS.1. Sincerely, thank you for your feedback. I do not have all the answers. The electrical theory of Chi and Chinese acupuncture has not been accepted by the Western scientific community. The electrical theory of Chi and Chinese acupuncture is being investigated by the Chinese scientific and medical community. Bearing in mind that not everyone agrees with Dr. Yang's electrical theory of Chi and Chinese acupuncture, or Chi at all, I will add those pro and con references that seem useful to discussion. Dewi7 ( talk)
I m peraplegia patient since last 2 year can u help me for walk again 27.62.229.102 ( talk) 07:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, This text, while a translation, describes Wujishi standing breathing exercises.
This is not any kind of promotion - My son gave me a copy of the book to study.
Wujishi Breathing Exercises from the teachings of Cai Songfang ISBN 978 1 939278 00 5 USA Plum Publications Santa Cruz California https://www.plumpub.com/kaimen/wujishi/ b'art homme 10:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme ( talk • contribs)
It seems odd that an article about an ancient Chinese practice has, as its first picture, an event in Manhattan, New York. One might be led to think that Wikipedia has a US-centric view of the world. 86.185.71.236 ( talk) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This one line entry seems to my layman's eyes at odds with it's reference, probably from being so broadly stated as any medical condition. Particularly it's first reference to NIH website does not seem like a functional reference for this statement. Additionally, one could take away from this, particularly read/quoted in a vacuum, that the physical motion or meditative elements provide no benefit at all, which I think the intent is to say that qi-gong has no shown benefit beyond the benefits we already know from which the elements of which is is made.
Would the article not be better served by adding caveats similar to the ones Safety and cost section has (e.g. "Typically the cautions associated with qigong are the same as those associated with any physical activity") and/or referencing the Clinical research section to drive the reader to a fuller understanding of insufficiencies in evidence for efficacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.117.242 ( talk) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This
Meditation and self-cultivation applications
and similar subsections should be moved to the "Uses/Aims" one to avoid duplication.
I have edited one heading only, as it would take too much time to reorder.
Zezen ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the recent copyediting to the lead section remains accurate but that the sentence could be improved. The previous one also could be, so I'll enumerate and suggest another version, welcoming others to also do:
Because clinical research on qigong for its potential benefit in treating various diseases – such as hypertension, pain, and cancer – has been inconclusive due to poor quality, there remains no evidence that qigong has any therapeutic effect, as of 2016.
Clinical research on qigong to treat various health problems and diseases, such as hypertension, pain, and cancer, has been mostly inconclusive, possibly via poor quality, and as of 2016, there remains no compelling scientific evidence that qigong is effective treatment of the medical conditions studied.
While some clinical research was done to test if qigong benefited patients suffering from various diseases, low quality methodology and inconsistent results provided no conclusive evidence that qigong is effective to treat any condition.
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
the lack of compelling scientific evidence is not the same as "no evidence"it means "no conclusive evidence". — Paleo Neonate – 04:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no reliable evidence that Qigong is effective for the treatment of any condition, to closely paraphrase its cited sources: "In testing qigong to treat several conditions diagnosed in Western medicine, clinical trials have been mostly of low quality and have produced mixed results, consistently positive only for hypertension, whereby no firm conclusion can be drawn" [ diff, 09:55, 28 Aug 2020]. The sources don't concern all conditions and all reliable evidence, which are grand questions and riddles beyond the source's knowledge scope. Liberati & Vineis clarify "that EBM does not, and cannot, answer all the epistemological and practical questions surrounding the practice of medicine. On the contrary, it is important that expectations of EBM are appropriate in order to prevent conceptual and practical mistakes."[8] Further, "views of it which are too narrow have created avoidable confrontations with those who may be concerned that an 'EBM-dominated view' can do more harm than good. As efforts by methodologists have chiefly focused on how to design, conduct, and interpret studies aimed at assessing the eficacy/effectiveness of drugs, EBM is today mostly 'evidence based therapy' with robust tools—that is, randomised controlled trials—especially for assessing the worth of relatively simple interventions. The fact that we currently have limited ability to reliably assess complex interventions, preventive care in general, and diagnosis as well as prognosis, should be seen not only as the result of the greater intrinsic complexity of these areas but also as the consequence of lower intellectual investments. This is a reflection, in turn, of the more limited commercial interests at stake here" [8]. — Occurring ( talk) 15:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Didn't Indian and Chinese philosophy that some Chi energy comes up from Earth and some Chi energy comes down from Heaven [into the Yoga/Tai Chi poses ]? Need clarification for this point which came up recently in one of my groups. I have references in English, but not the original Qigong sources. Thank You D ? PS.1. Sincerely, thank you for your feedback. I do not have all the answers. The electrical theory of Chi and Chinese acupuncture has not been accepted by the Western scientific community. The electrical theory of Chi and Chinese acupuncture is being investigated by the Chinese scientific and medical community. Bearing in mind that not everyone agrees with Dr. Yang's electrical theory of Chi and Chinese acupuncture, or Chi at all, I will add those pro and con references that seem useful to discussion. Dewi7 ( talk)
I m peraplegia patient since last 2 year can u help me for walk again 27.62.229.102 ( talk) 07:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, This text, while a translation, describes Wujishi standing breathing exercises.
This is not any kind of promotion - My son gave me a copy of the book to study.
Wujishi Breathing Exercises from the teachings of Cai Songfang ISBN 978 1 939278 00 5 USA Plum Publications Santa Cruz California https://www.plumpub.com/kaimen/wujishi/ b'art homme 10:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B'art homme ( talk • contribs)
It seems odd that an article about an ancient Chinese practice has, as its first picture, an event in Manhattan, New York. One might be led to think that Wikipedia has a US-centric view of the world. 86.185.71.236 ( talk) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
This one line entry seems to my layman's eyes at odds with it's reference, probably from being so broadly stated as any medical condition. Particularly it's first reference to NIH website does not seem like a functional reference for this statement. Additionally, one could take away from this, particularly read/quoted in a vacuum, that the physical motion or meditative elements provide no benefit at all, which I think the intent is to say that qi-gong has no shown benefit beyond the benefits we already know from which the elements of which is is made.
Would the article not be better served by adding caveats similar to the ones Safety and cost section has (e.g. "Typically the cautions associated with qigong are the same as those associated with any physical activity") and/or referencing the Clinical research section to drive the reader to a fuller understanding of insufficiencies in evidence for efficacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.117.242 ( talk) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)