Investigating Woo: Qigong
Written by Colin Wright in Opinion at October 19, 2011
There is probably not a single phrase that is a more accurate prelude to bullshit than “such-and-such is based on ancient Chinese wisdom.” The idea that credibility is gained the older and more distant a practice becomes is nonsense. It is similar to the common arguments one often hears when debating Christians: “Well, people wouldn’t have believed in this for two-thousand years if it were false.” For some reason there is an allure for practices surviving to modern times from a distant and tumultuous past. A difficult notion for some people to accept is that modern man knows more than any primitive culture, and the allure should be reversed, favoring the advice of modern doctors or scientist over the scribblings of some ancient shaman from the Bronze Age.
This fascination with ancient teachings is interesting, and the direct proportionality of the age of an idea to the fervency with which it is believed is even more curious and nonsensical. This is known as the logical fallacy of antiquity/tradition, or argumentum ad antiquitum: Because something is old, or has been done in the past, it should be valued.
I got to thinking about this while watching a Fox News story about some third-grade kid who espouses to have “healed his friend with Qigong,” an ancient Chinese practice. See it for yourself.
The “Qigong master” Chunyi Lin, from the video, says the following:
“A person sends out energy through the heart to help others to clear the energy blockages — clear the aches and pains. . .”
Right away my BS detector is going off. I really have a problem with such an il-defined (more like completely un-defined) use of the word “energy.” What energy? Where does it come from, and how does wiggling your hands over some area of the body somehow concentrate this energy? Sure, the body radiates energy in the form of heat, but the idea that you can “send out energy through the heart” and apparently through the fingertips in order to “clear energy blockages” is insane and has absolutely no scientific backing. Plus, it makes me think of something akin to force lightning.

Wait, wasn’t there a Qigong in Star Wars? Or maybe it was Qui Gon. . .
Another part of the story that caught my attention was this:
“Lin said he knows that just by looking at it, Qigong can appear to be hokey, but a recent study at the University of Minnesota and Mayo Clinic found that people suffering from chronic pain felt significantly better after weeks of external Qigong treatments.”
So, I did a little investigating and found an abstract of the study (I’m NOT paying $25 bucks to read the whole paper!). The study, from what I can tell from the abstract alone, doesn’t seem very thorough, since it was not a blinded test. Some people were given Qigong treatment and others were given “equivalent attention time,” whatever that means. There were no subjects who were told they were receiving Qigong, but were instead given a mimic Qigong treatment. That would have been helpful. Plus there was no real rigorous way to assess pain besides the telephone and questionnaire method.
“At 8-week follow-up, participants were contacted by telephone and mailed a questionnaire.”
Also, this bit of information seems rather important when considering the effects of Qigong.
“Most patients were also receiving other treatments (74%)”
Usually, when performing an experiment, you are going to want to hold all other variables as constant as possible. When testing for the effectiveness of a specific treatment, it would seem rather logical to not have 74% of your subjects taking a variety of other treatments in concert with the treatment you’re specifically trying to evaluate for effectiveness.
Something tells me that these people weren’t trying as hard as they could have in testing whether Qigong is actually better than a placebo. This makes sense, because if the study were done properly it would almost surely reveal that it’s completely bunk. However, most people don’t actually follow up a story claiming to be supported by clinical trials-they just assume that those performing the study are honest and thorough, and leave it at that. End inquiry. And therein lies the problem; believe it or not, some people will trick you-lie-to get you to buy their bogus product. Every person who simply takes their word for it contributes to the excessive prevalence of these con people, ensuring that even more people will fall victim.
The moral of this story is to weigh the evidence yourself; never let people interpret it for you, especially if they have something to sell. Hold on tightly to your skepticism, for you’re a tool and a fool without it.

Colin — thanks for writing about the Mayo Clinic’s study on spring forest qigong. I’m curious how you determined there were no people told they were receiving qigong treatment but instead received a placebo.
The Mayo Clinic study was “randomized controlled” which is also called a “gold standard” study by methodology.
Have you considered the testimonies from the spring forest qigong website or that Chunyi Lin has co-authored a chapter for a Mayo Clinic medical textbook — with the other author being Mayo Clinic Dr. Nina Mishak. Maybe you would like to contact Dr. Nina Mishak if you are really interesting in finding out if qigong is real. The people giving their testimonies have been healed of serious conditions — late term cancer, M.S., Parkinsons, etc.
I took classes from Chunyi Lin to finish my masters degree at the University of Minnesota and I can assure you the energy transmissions from Chunyi Lin are very real. I realize that this reality is not accepted very easily in modern society but that is the beauty of investigating the unknown. There are other qigong masters to consider as well — for example Effie P. Chow was the first qigong master I experienced in person and she blew the fuse in the room behind us at a local university. John Chang’s qigong video on youtube is a very real presentation that is tested by western doctors. Harvard doctor David Eisenberg’s book “Encounters with Qi” is a great source. For deeper analysis try Dr. David Palmer’s book Qigong Fever — I’ve corresponded with Palmer and he sent me one of his articles. Palmer is now a professor in Hong Kong.
Have fun with your research and don’t give up so easily — you’ll find out the truth. If you’re really curious you can always just get a phone healing from Chunyi Lin or one of the other qigong masters he trained — Jim Nance for example. It’s difficult to even conceptualize what the qigong energy is like unless you experience it.