Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
After four years and five days of nearly continuous blogging about skepticism, quackery, science- and evidence-based medicine, and a variety of other topics, you'd think there wouldn't be much that I haven't seen before. Certainly, lately, I've been wondering lately if there was anything left that could surprise me or horrify me anymore, and jaded is not a good way to be as a blogger. Indeed, in retrospect, I wonder if jadedness was why I had to stop Your Friday Dose of Woo for a while, the death of my dog notwithstanding, and why I'm happier now that I no longer feel obligated to do it every Friday. And, even now, every so often, there's something so bizarre, something I've never heard of before, something that takes me by surprise.
This is one of those times.
Lately, I've been ragging on acupuncture--and justifiably so, I like to think. Having gone from sort of believer (or at least being somewhat open-minded about it) to realizing what that it is no more than an elaborate placebo and produces nonspecific effects that one would expect of an elaborate placebo, thanks to having actually taken the time over the last couple of years to read the clinical and scientific literature on acupuncture, I've yet to find compelling evidence that can convince me that I've made a mistake or that there is something to this woo. After all, what is acupuncture at its heart but another "energy healing" modality? Think about it. The entire basis of acupuncture is the scientifically risible claim that by sticking tiny needles into hundreds of small points along "meridians" through which qi ("life energy") flows, an acupuncturist can "unblock" or "redirect" the flow of qi. But acupuncturists don't make the claim that they can unblock or redirect the flow of qi but add to that claim another claim, namely that they can do this for therapeutic intent for all sorts of physiologically unrelated conditions. The only reason I used to give acupuncture a bit of a pass was because it actually involved a physical act, sticking needles in the skin.
Another reason I used to tend to give acupuncture a bit of a pass was that, like Dirty Harry Callahan, whose famous tagline from the second Dirty Harry movie Magnum Force was, "A man's got to know his limitations." And so it was with most acupuncturists, who (mostly) treat chronic pain syndromes, headache, or other conditions with a large subjective component, almost as if they acknowledge that what they provide is a placebo and a little TLC for patients who might be fed up with many of the shortcomings of scientific medicine. I almost never heard of an acupuncturist claiming to be able to treat life-threatening conditions, such as cancer. Indeed, such claims were uncommon enough that I can't remember the last time I've heard of an acupuncturist claiming to cure fatal diseases.
Until now, unfortunately.
Behold Tom Tam, an acupuncturist in the Boston area who, based on dolls that map acupuncture meridians, has created a "healing modality" that he calls Tong Ren. Here he is on a poorly conceived and typically credulous local news report:
That's right, it looks as though Tom Tam is using acupuncture meridians as a guide to voodoo therapy, and I do mean voodoo therapy. Watch the video to see what I mean. Or read this description of Tong Ren:
Tong Ren is based on a belief that disease is related to interruptions, or blockages, in the body's natural flow of chi, neural bioelectricity, blood, or hormones. Tong Ren seeks to remove these blockages, restoring the body's natural ability to heal itself, even when illnesses are chronic, debilitating, or otherwise untreatable.Tong Ren combines western knowledge of anatomy and physiology with the ancient principle of "chi," or life force energy, to create what many consider to be a powerful new healing modality. Drawing on the Jungian theory of the "collective unconscious," Tong Ren is believed to access energy from this universal source and direct it to the patient. Because no physical contact is involved or necessary, Tong Ren is often practiced as distance healing.
In a typical therapy session, the Tong Ren practitioner uses a small human anatomical model as an energetic representation of the patient, tapping on targeted points on the model with a lightweight magnetic hammer. The practitioner directs chi to blockage points corresponding to the patient's condition, breaking down resistance at these points. As blood flow, neural transmission, and hormone reception are restored, the body is then able to heal.
That's all there is to it. Tom Tam taps on a voodoo--excuse me, acupuncture--doll and claims that this tapping (along with "intent," of course) treats cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and other diseases. He even runs frequent classes to teach people to use Tong Ren for cancer, emotional problems, weight loss, and even animals. But that's not all. Tom Tam also claims to be able to treat chemotherapy side effects, surgery side effects, autoimmune disorders, and thyroid disease, to name a few more, by teleconference, even!
Is there any evidence for this? I think you know the answer to that. I had wanted to save Tong Ren for an installment of Your Friday Dose of Woo. As you will see, it definitely qualifies. However, one thing I learned from my inclusion of the German New Medicine two years ago, and that's that I want YFDoW to be light-hearted, and I have a hard time being light-hearted about a charlatan, however well-intentioned, who is plying his quackery on people with life-threatening diseases. So Tong Ren was out for YFDoW. But it's in for a heapin' helpin' of not-so-Respecful Insolence because it isn't worthy of Respectful Insolence. Just look at this "explanation" of how Tong Ren "works":
Tong Ren healing is not affiliated with any religion, nor should it be viewed as a mystery. My belief in Tong Ren healing is associated with the philosophy of the collective unconscious and the power of the mind. Many people accept the idea that there is an unconscious and that the mind is powerful. These philosophical views can be found in many books. When a group comes together to form a collective unconscious, as in healing meditation, this collective mind can become healing power. A leader is required for this type of healing power. When we form a group with a collective unconscious mind, we need a, just as a computer needs a font to show a letter on a monitor.In Tong Ren Therapy we use a regular plastic acupuncture model to form the healing image. The acupuncture model becomes an energetic representation of the patient's body. By placing the needles in the appropriate spots on the model and connecting the mind with our collective unconscious, the practitioner can give a patient a treatment. A connection between the therapist and the patient is formed. This connection can be modified by the energetic representation of the acupuncture model. Just as light shining through a slide will display an image, the Chi directed to the patient is modified by the image of the acupuncture model with needles inserted at specific points. The pattern of needles and the points selected are the same as the acupuncturist would use if inserting the needles directly into the patient's body. Both inserting needles in the model and in the patient's body are means to balance the patient's Chi. The difference, of course, is that when the model is used the patient can be treated over long distance. This is similar to some Japanese acupuncture methods in which the needle is just touched to the skin but not inserted. Because Chi and the collective unconscious are not limited by space; the only thing is to establish a connection. The healing power is not from the acupuncture model--it is from our mind, and this mind transforms into a healing force. This healing energy we call Chi. In the human body, Chi has its own way to circulate. We must regulate the Chi and make it run on its track. This is the same theory that a Chi Gong master uses to make Chi circulate in a patient's body.
There are seven pages of just that sort of woo. In fact, there's more than just seven pages. A lot more. Just get a load of this document describing the techniques of Tong Ren. I'll boil its nine pages of super-concentrated black hole density woo down for you. Basically, it says that you can use a hammer, laser, or pins on the acupuncture doll to redirect the flow of qi and heal. Actually, this last method makes me wonder if there is something inherent in humans that leads them to think that sticking needles in a doll can have an effect on another human being, be that effect bad (voodoo) or therapeutic (Tong Ren). But I digress. In fact, there was a fourth method, which Tom Tam calls "Discing." I was horrified to read this description of treating breast cancer using "Discing":
To do Discing, one requires a disc or a dish as a tool. You may use the lid of a sugar jar, a teapot lid, a teacup lid, or a small saucer. Simply set the disc or lid above the Ouch Point on the doll or directly onto the patient. Each practitioner places one or two fingers on the disc or the lid. When we use the doll, we can use the bigger acupuncture model, as it is easier to position a lid on it. If we put the lid directly onto the patient, the patient may sit down in a comfortable position or lie down and relax. When we treat cancer or tumors, we ask the patient where the tumor is located, then let the patient position the lid or disc on top of the tumor.Before the treatment, we usually ask the patient to do self-examination by pressing on the tumor (Ouch Point) and remembering the size and level of pain. After the treatment, they should press the same area to compare the before and after conditions. Doing Discing on the Ouch Point takes about five minutes. Usually the patient feels sensations such as tingling, heat, warmth, heaviness or body aches as when other Tong Ren healing techniques are being applied. After we are done with treating the tumor or Ouch Point, we apply the same technique on the spinal blockage points.
For example, when we treat breast cancer, we first treat the tumor or lump on the breast area, and then treat T4, where the blockage causing the breast problem is located. After treating T4, the next area we can work on is on the head at BL6 and GV22. In the Tom Tam Healing System. BL6 and GV22 are the pituitary gland and 7 hormone area. The mammary gland is a hormonal organ, controlled by the pituitary gland. When we put the center of the lid on GV22, it automatically covers BL6; we do not need to separate GV22 and BL6 when we do Discing. Before doing Discing on a patient with a breast tumor, the patient should check the size of the lump first if the lump can be found. After the treatment, the lump should be checked again so we can compare the size. Very often, the lump may be smaller or may even have disappeared after the treatment.
How much easier my job would be if I could just take a dish or the lid of a sugar jar, put it on the "ouch point" of my patients, and think happy thoughts at them, visualizing healing. I guess that's just the nasty materialist, Western, reductionist, science-based physician in me talking, though. That nasty science-based physician in me also wants Tom Tam to show me the evidence, if you know what I mean. What I would want would at the very minimum be good, well-documented case reports, but preferably such evidence should take the form of well-designed clinical trials, prefereably randomized and double-blinded. If you've been reading this blog, you know already Tom Tam has no such thing. You probably also know what he does have.
That's right, testimonials.
Look at the news report above. An unfortunate woman with liver cancer is told she has only six months to live. She is still alive and feeling fairly good a year later. Never mind that she's probably still taking conventional therapy. Never mind that he is not disease free, as far as I can tell from the news story; her tumor is still there. Never mind that she is probably just one of the lucky ones who are "outliers" on the bell-shaped curve. She attributes her good fortune to Tom Tam's woo. The second testimonial is even less convincing than the first. It's a guy with leukemia. Although nothing is said one way or the other about chemotherapy, it's a good bet he got standard chemotherapy. He felt like crap and lost a lot of weight, as leukemia patients undergoing chemotherapy are prone to do. Now he feels better, and he attributes it to Tom Tam. Anyone want to guess that he started to feel better because the chemotherapy took care of his tumor and then later because his chemotherapy ended? Then there's this testimonial:
It's a pleasant and lovely Asian woman who had ductal carcinoma in situ. She underwent surgery and radiation (no mention of hormonal therapy), but her tumor recurred as an invasive breast cancer, after which she underwent mastectomy and chemotherapy. After that, her tumor appears to have recurred in an axillary lymph node, which was removed surgically. She then went to Tom Tam, and, of course, she attributes her continued survival to him. Of course, it's possible--likely, actually--that the surgery to remove her axillary lymph node recurrence is what's responsible for her current disease-free state. Indeed, her case is very much like the prototypical breast cancer testimonial that I wrote about nearly four years ago. Unfortunately, it's also possible--likely, even--that her tumor will recur again. But it might not. If it does recur, you can bet that she won't blame Tong Ren for failing. If it doesn't, you can bet that she'll give Tong Ren the credit for "healing" her.
The other thing that's mentioned is that Harvard is supposedly "studying" Tong Ren. That's a bit of a stretch, as you will see if you follow the link, which leads to a study entitled A Pilot Investigation of the Tong Ren Healing System: A Survey Study. It looks like nothing more than a survey of users of Tong Ren to me, and its purpose is unclear. Personally, if the people doing the survey are using this survey to see if there is anything to Tong Ren, this is about the worst way possible to find out. All it will end up doing is to collect testimonials, perhaps like this one:
In April of 2005, my life-long friend Rick Kuethe called me from Boston (I live in Omaha, Ne) to tell me about a new therapy he'd been working with called Tong Ren, developed by a wonderful Chinese healer named Tom Tam. Rick knew that for years I have suffered from fibromyalgia, lumbar stenosis, and most importantly, lung cancer in May of 2003. At that time I was lucky enough to have an operable tumor in the upper lobe of my left lung, and surgery was successful. However, at my quarterly oncology checkups over the last two years, small spots had still appeared. They were too small to biopsy, but never went away.Rick started treating me weekly, by phone, in April 2005 with the following results: my FMS pain went from a daily 8 to about a 3 (on a pain scale of 1-10 with 10 being the worst), my general energy levels went up, and my blood pressure and weight went down. After three months, in July 2005, at my quarterly oncology checkup, my lung spots were completely gone. In October 2005, my lungs were once again completely cancer free!
If there's one thing we in the cancer field know, it's that "spots too small to biopsy" in the lung may or may not be cancer. Often, even in patients treated for cancer, we will watch them to see if they grow, because taking out a chunk of lung in someone who's already had cancer to try to find such tiny lesions is generally riskier than careful observation. And guess what? Many times these "spots too small to biopsy" will either remain stable or disappear on their own. True, sometimes they will grow, but that's why oncologists keep a close eye on them.
Such is the "evidence" upon which Tom Tam bases his claim that Tong Ren cures cancer and even disses regular acupuncture:
Most acupuncturists have a hard time believing that Tong Ren is more powerful than the use of acupuncture needles for treating cancer. In fact, Tong Ren Therapy has successfully healed many cancer cases, whereas there has not been any report about cancers having been cured by the exclusive use of acupuncture.
Well, one out of two ain't bad, I guess.
But how does Tong Ren work? If you've been reading this blog and other skeptical blogs about "alternative" medicine, I bet you know what's coming next, don't you? (If you don't you should.) What is a modality like Tong Ren incomplete without? How can woo-meisters "explain" a modality that involves imaginging an "energetic imprint" on a doll and then either tapping it, shooting a laser at it, or sticking pins in it? How can woo-meisters "explain" a modality that can be used for "distance healing? There's only one way. That's right. It's all quantum theory:
My brain hurts. It's all there, the dubious appeals to "energy" and "quantum theory," along with the usual silliness about how "Western" doctors aren't interested because they can't understand it or sell it. There's an absolutely ridiculous bit about how there's "no economic benefit" how "all medicine is political," and how this woo-meister can "treat" a woman with breast cancer over the phone. Truly, brain pain, and I don't think Tong Ren is going to help.
But, you're thinking: Orac, you're such a downer. Come on, what do you have against curing cancer? After all, Tom Tam assures us this is all science, maaaan:
Yes, a high school student named Miles Sarill applied Tong Ren to mouse neuroblastoma cells ordered from ATCC and claims that they reverted back to "normal" and then underwent apoptosis. Of course, anyone who's ever done cell culture knows that it's very easy to get anomalous results, and it wasn't explained if the control cells were subjected to any sort of sham treatment. For instance, he says he's treating the cancer cells every day as shown in these pictures (1, 2, 3). Is he also taking the control cells out of the incubator in exactly the same fashion and for the same amount of time? I also wonder how he's keeping the control cells from being exposed to the powerful woo--I mean Tong Ren--"healing" energy. After all, Tom Tam claims that distance is irrelevant and healing can occur over hundreds of miles. Is a mere incubator and maybe 10 feet of distance going to protect the control cells from the powerful woo rays emanating from the tapping of the Tong Ren doll? I think not, if Tong Ren were real. Let's see, his video was made nearly a year ago, and our intrepid young woo investigator said he was going to repeat the experiment. On his blog, we see a picture of cells allegedly treated with Tong Ren undergoing apoptosis, but there are no pictures of the controls shown, and no quantitative data. The blog entry is dated February 15, 2008. There hasn't been any update since then.
I wonder if later experiments showed that he had discovered nothing more than an artifact or had not used proper controls? It wouldn't surprise me. Hopefully, if that happened, he learned a thing or two about the scientific method. Given that Miles is an inquisitive high school student who appears to have gone astray, I'm hopeful he can be brought back into the fold of science. Maybe he'll even stop referring to himself as a "paraneuropsychopharmacologist."
The bottom line about Tong Ren is that it is magical thinking. Indeed, Tong Ren gives homeopathy and its sympathetic magic a run for its money in terms of pure magical thinking. Moreover, I'm particularly disturbed that Tom Tam and his acolytes are selling this woo to cancer patients, especially breast cancer patients. As a cancer surgeon, I get pretty pissed off about things like that. But Tom Tam doesn't limit himself to just cancer. Oh, no, he treats AIDS, heart disease, and a whole slew of other complaints. Truly, this is an example of combining acupuncture and voodoo dolls, two crappy tastes alone that taste even crappier together.
Medicine & Health
Comments
That's one for the 'some people will believe anything' file.
Sigh.
Posted by: Lexin | December 16, 2008 10:28 AM
Life imitates art - The British Veterinary Voodoo Society was supposed to be satire.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 16, 2008 10:40 AM
What happens if you aim the laser at the wrong point on the doll — do you get sudden sharp pains in inconvenient places? On the other hand, could the brainwashed Maharaja in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom have cured Indy's high cholesterol by poking that needle more carefully?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 16, 2008 10:40 AM
From my The British Veterinary Voodoo Society link above:
Which one is the parody?
Posted by: Skeptico | December 16, 2008 10:51 AM
One thing that struck me immediately is how weird it is for somebody to turn to woo for hypothyroidism (early in the first clip). I mean, it's so HARD to take a pill every morning. OK, sure, you have to have regular blood tests to monitor TSH levels and make sure the dose is right, but that's a lot less trouble than these sessions look like. (I know that of which I speak here; I have hypothyroidism myself as a result of radioiodine therapy for Graves' disease.)
The second clip was also very interesting - apparently she refused more chemo because the doctor wouldn't give her a guarantee that it would cure her permanently. If this Tom Tam *is* giving such guarantees, he ought to be arrested.
Posted by: Scott | December 16, 2008 11:07 AM
The famed "voodoo doll" is actually a practice taken straight from European witchcraft (poppets), little to do with actual voodoo (a fun faith which the whole family can enjoy - especially once you invest in a drum machine).
So while this type of sympathetic magic is complete and utter bullshit, it is original, nay vintage, Western European bullshit.
This probably explains why the other acupuncturists aren't too happy with him; they can't have people going round pretending Western woo is equal to the Eastern variety.
Posted by: Aj | December 16, 2008 11:17 AM
If you can combine voodoo and acupuncture, what happens to an identical twin if their twin is treated with acupuncture?
Posted by: Mojo | December 16, 2008 11:18 AM
I get the feeling that cancer patients are almost pushed into woo just to get back some control in their lives. Do you think oncologists could give some thought to getting patients to look after the things they can look after. There are enough of them and some of them are essential like keeping the fluid balance right and the patient is the only one who can really do that. I thought I might help out by taking Mg supplements after I noted it was low after chemo, thinking like a biochemist of rate limiting steps in reactions. Was a nice idea but there happen to be other and obviously more essential rate limiting steps on the way to cell count regeneration so nothing much happened well, faster at any rate. Still the principle is sound and there are better things than taking megadoses of anti-oxidants that ruin the efficacy of chemo. One bloke I read about used to run his altie stuff (mainly herbals) past his oncologist to check whether it would interfere or not and they had developed a good working relationship - something of a model I suspect. Seriously oncologists need to think about what makes this stuff attractive. I think the control issue is real and there doesn't seem to be any harm in voodoo dolls so it's a twofer.
Posted by: alyric | December 16, 2008 11:37 AM
As Neil Young said: "I've seen the needle and the damage done..."
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 16, 2008 12:01 PM
I agree with alyric regarding giving the patient some autonomy. There is a huge difference between "feeling better" (which, sure, the woo can do) and curing disease, and if they feel better using Whackupuncture ((C) Me ??), they should be free to give Master Tom Tom their cash. But he better not dare tell them to abandon their actual medical treatment.
Posted by: Dave | December 16, 2008 12:10 PM
Orac says,
"I also wonder how he's keeping the control cells from being exposed to the powerful woo--I mean Tong Ren--"healing" energy. After all, Tom Tam claims that distance is irrelevant and healing can occur over hundreds of miles. Is a mere incubator and maybe 10 feet of distance going to protect the control cells from the powerful woo rays emanating from the tapping of the Tong Ren doll? I think not, if Tong Ren were real."
Mojo says,
"If you can combine voodoo and acupuncture, what happens to an identical twin if their twin is treated with acupuncture?"
You guys just don't understand Tong Ren, did you not catch the part about the collective consciousness, and maybe The Secret. It's all about the energy, quantum fields, negative space, time (which physicians ignore because it's too complex), and most important of all, directing one's thoughts at the diseased individual in question. Therefore, there should be no problem controlling a study so long as one's thoughts do not stray to another cell culture, the other twin, or Angelina Jolie.
Posted by: MKandefer | December 16, 2008 12:18 PM
Hello dear Orac,
This is none other than the "paraneuropsychopharmacologist" Miles Sarill that you spoke of. I feel that one cannot make novel contributions to science without initial derision. So I must thank you for that. And for the most part, you are correct about my shoddy methodology, but only because my study was a preliminary one. As a high school student, one does not have as many resources and as much time as a scientist in a dedicated research laboratory. However, I have done this study a couple of times, each time with similar results. It was enough to make even the most hardcore skeptic in my classroom double-take and realize there might be something more to Tong Ren.
Orac, please realize that if I acquired data that would contradict the tenets of Tong Ren, I would feel compelled to present them in their entirety. That is the scientist's duty. The reason why I have posted nothing since those first preliminary experiments is that I have been busy conducting research in neuropharmacology at a laboratory in Boston. In other words the experiment on Tong Ren wasn't my main priority. However, after I return to this work in the near future, I invite you to read the journal article I intend to submit (regardless of results) with open eyes. I intend to utilize flow cytometry to properly quantitate cell viability, and controls and variables will be moved to different incubators routinely. All will be done in triplicate.
By the way, some doctors at Dana Farber Cancer Center have been referring their patients for Tong Ren therapy because they've seen regression or remission in cases of stage IV lung and liver cancer. Although one can ascribe some of these results to the placebo effect, it is also known that animals and babies respond to Tong Ren, in which case there can be no possibility of a placebo effect. Of course, one needs rigorously conducted peer-reviewed studies for such results to be accepted. With the formation of the OCI Healing Research Foundation, Inc., funding for such studies should be eventually available.
Sincerely,
Miles Sarill
biotech(dot)samurai (at) gmail(dot)com
PS. I like the term woo-meister. I just might have to refer to myself that way more often. Please feel free to email me back.
Posted by: Miles Sarill | December 16, 2008 2:37 PM
Who, specifically, is referring patients for Tong Ren?
I happen to know a couple of people at Dana Farber.
It's not true that there can be no placebo effect in animals or babies:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=263
Posted by: Orac | December 16, 2008 2:45 PM
Wasn't there a failed 1990s dotcom called OuchPoint?
Posted by: ebohlman | December 16, 2008 3:06 PM
Off topic : May I ask, what is the subject in that photo in the upper left corner of the blog? I'm assuming it has something to do with woo.
Posted by: delanne | December 16, 2008 3:27 PM
Miles Sarill steps up to the plate, eyes the catcher, shakes off the call, finally gets the sign he wants and throws the Galileo Gambit for his first pitch. Orac at the plate, watches the pitch fly by, completely ignoring it, and the umpire calls, "Ball One!"
Miles then proceeds to throw out, in no particular order, Correlation equals causation, Preliminary results...promise to publish later/ I don't have time to do complete tests or publish a paper now, a combined Appeal To Authority/Appeal To Anonymous Authority, and a lack of understanding of the placebo effect, and probably some other fallacious arguments I missed.
Posted by: Karl Withakay | December 16, 2008 4:15 PM
It's a self portrait. ;-)
Posted by: Orac | December 16, 2008 4:30 PM
Miles,
You're a bright young man. Stop doing science wrong.
Posted by: Joseph C. | December 16, 2008 4:33 PM
delanne, didn't you watch PBS in the 80's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orac_(Blake%27s_7)
Posted by: Karl Withakay | December 16, 2008 4:33 PM
Actually, in case Miles comes back, I'll even give him a few pointers on how he should do his experiments, if do them he must (and personally I think they're a total waste of time):
1. Each set of cells must be treated identically. If the Tong Ren group is out of the incubator for ten minutes, then the control group must be out of the incubator for ten minutes and in the same part of the lab. An absolutely rigorous search needs to be done to account for any potential differences in how the groups are treated. Preferably, some sort of "sham" or placebo Tong Ren should be developed for the control group.
2. The person running any assays needs to be blinded to which cell group is which. Ideally, someone else should plate Miles' cells for him to assure equal plating density, and put a code on the flasks in a place where it can't be easily seen. Then that person should give the experimental flask to Miles to do Tong Ren on every day. After the experiment is over, someone else should run the assays on the cells, so that the person running the assays does not know which group is the Tong Ren group and which is the control. Preferably Miles should not run the assays, because even if he didn't see the codes he might still recognize which flask is which.
3. Repetition, repetition, repetition. Although triplicate is fine for individual experiments, three repeats are probably not enough to establish this phenomenon. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidnece, which is why Miles also needs...
4. Quantification. Rigorous quantification is necessary.
5. Different conditions. A biological effect, if it's real, should hold up over a number of cell types under a variety of conditions. If it only works if the cell density is X, for example, it's probably an anomaly.
6. Test several malignant and nonmalignant cell lines. If Tong Ren really is good against cancer, we might predict that it would kill cancer cell lines but not nonmalignant cell lines or cells taken from primary tissue culture. If it were to kill any cell line tested, it would be worthless. An example I like to mention is bleach. Bleach kills cancer cells dead, but it also kills normal cells at about the same rate. Preferential killing of cancer cells over normal, nonmalignant cells is essential.
7. Dose-response. If Tong Ren has a biological effect, we would predict that it would have a dose-response curve, with a greater effect as the "dose" (frequency and/or length of treatment) increases.
8. Molecular correlates. How does gene expression change in response to Tong Ren?
I'm just throwing out some things that any halfway decent peer reviewer is going to ask; so Miles might as well be ready now.
One final bit of advice to Miles: Do not submit your manuscript to the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Medical Acupuncture, or similar "alt med" journals. Such journals have notoriously low standards, so much so that it's not unreasonable to dismiss anything published in them almost out of hand. Submit to high quality journals, like the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Cellular and Molecular Biology, Cancer Research, the Journal of Cell Biology, etc.
Posted by: Orac | December 16, 2008 4:51 PM
Why would tapping at locations on a human figure be effective when dealing with mouse cells?
Posted by: LW | December 16, 2008 7:22 PM
maybe they used a little mousey doll?. if it's all "quantum" and stuff, why'd they need the doll anyway?. surely the super duper thought power would work on it's own?. someone should tell the westboro crazies about this witchcraft! maybe they can finally do something useful and persecute someone that actually deserves it.
Posted by: flim flam | December 16, 2008 7:57 PM
No, it was a human figure not a mousey doll. If you suffered through the whole video, you would see him solemnly tapping on a human figure. Also, the audience asks deeply educated questions about which points he chose and why, but no one asks whether he verified that acupuncture points on mousies are the same as acupuncture points on people. I think that would be an important footnote in the forthcoming monograph.
Posted by: LW | December 16, 2008 8:44 PM
When Tom Lehrer said "specialize in diseases of the rich" he should have said "...gullible."
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 16, 2008 9:01 PM
Hey, there's a branch in Singapore!
http://divuscara.com/tongren/tongrensingapore/index.htm
Posted by: angry doc | December 17, 2008 3:38 AM
Sounds like voo-doo dolls and "sympathetic magic" to me. All they have to do is make the doll wax, and stick a few hairs or nail clippings into it. Black chicken sacrifices optional.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | December 18, 2008 10:36 AM
Apparently people with actual medical degrees affiliated with respected medical research institutions (Dana Farber, Harvard Medical School), who have presented at national oncological conferences and published in real peer reviewed magazines (versus obscure blogs written by people reffering to themselves as "Orac") appear to disagree with you (and cite actual evidence).
http://chp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1533210108329265v1
Posted by: George Garrol | December 30, 2008 11:13 PM
Yawn.
If you want to play that game, I'll wearily go along. Believe it or not, I have published in real peer reviewed journals as well, including Cancer Research, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Genes and Development, Blood, Molecular and Cellular Biology, and--yes--even Nature (although I wasn't first or last author on the Nature publication; so I don't make as big a deal of it).
But for purposes of this discussion none of that matters other than for its being fun to throw back in the face of altie apologists like yourself who make that idiotic attack. What does matter is that this study is nothing more than a survey. It's utterly meaningless as far as determining whether Tong Ren has any efficacy whatsoever against cancer or anything else.
But I thank you. I think you may well have provided me with blog fodder--blogging on peer-reviewed research, even!
Posted by: Orac | December 30, 2008 11:58 PM
I didn't see it mentioned that Tom Tam doesn't charge for his Tong Ren "class". He charges for acupuncture. I've observed incredible results. Conditions that Boston Hospitals have called "inoperable" and "incurable", cured. Tom Tam treated me for ocular shingles with acupuncture. Mass Eye and Ear had "no treatment","too late for anti virals", and said "good luck, we'll see you in 6 weeks". I went to see Tom Tam with incredible pain, and my eye swollen shut. I walked out with my eye open and comfortable. My wife was a witness. I guess you would say it was imagined, but what kind of truth do you need.
Posted by: Chebacco | January 3, 2009 5:39 PM
Not usually a contributor to such a forum, I ask you to stop and consider for a moment. Claiming to be a skeptic takes little effort. Why not claim to be a scientist? What is cause and effect? If an action leads to an outcome, just because a you do not understand the cause, your lack of understanding does not make the effect any less valid. I have watched sufferers of Lyme disease, believing in the mainstream medical establishment and its truly impressive abilities, trust their doctor to the extent that they take the same ineffective and system destroying antibiotic every day for years and years and get sicker and sicker every year. That is true "woo" or hoping for faith healing. If Tong Ren does work, which it apparently does work for some people, is it placebo, or could it possibly have some basis in fact? I only ask you to cosider, "Is it possible?" Perhaps Tong Ren is based on that which we cannot understand as of yet. The foundations of this work have existed for millenia. Who are we to call these people frauds? An open mind and an acceptance of our own mental limitations, as Dirty Harry would advise, is an advantage. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961. Full disclosure - I had Lyme disease for more than 20 years. I could no longer work, walk, drive, speak, hear and had very limited mental acuity. I was very close to being institutionalized, or, I learned later, dying. Tong Ren gave me back my life and I have returned to a very intensive work life in finance. I have my family and friends back. While recovering from Lyme, I was in a traumatic accident. I severly ruptured 5 disks in my back. MRI's and x-rays do not allow for much "woo" interpretation. Once again, I could not work, walk, sit at my desk, or rest. Once more I am very active. No surgery. Tong Ren. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159-167. I guess William Shakespeare suggests the same pause to consider.
Posted by: V. Brown | January 4, 2009 11:04 AM
Good scientists must also be skeptics.
From the very page that you're staring at right now:
Posted by: Joseph C. | January 4, 2009 11:59 AM
There was a time when the world was flat and everyone laughed at the idea that it is round.
Now we are in the times of waking up and realizing what we have forgotten, that we have a creational given ability to heal ourselves without the poisons and the butchery that we were led to believe can help us. As individuals we have our thoughts yet they are combined, connected in their own sea. These thoughts travel faster than the speed of light and connect with any living being anywhere. Just like a lake in which a pebble thrown into that lake creates a ripple and a large boulder can create a disruption causing a big splash and a greater ripple. In time the water smoothes out again to a nice calm. I think to contradict a method that is helping people without any idea of how it works and without having any evidence proving us false, I believe that a boulder was thrown into your lake.
Sincerely
Del
Posted by: Del | January 7, 2009 3:07 PM
Del said "There was a time when the world was flat and everyone laughed at the idea that it is round."
One can pretty much guess that the rest of a comment is going to be regurgitated bovine excrement when they start off with this classic urban legend. Anyone who has taken any science, history or interest in any kind of learning will know that "everyone thought the world was flat" is a myth, especially since the diameter of the earth has been known since Eratosthenes over 2000 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
And, yep... it was pretty bad. Including this gem "These thoughts travel faster than the speed of light and connect with any living being anywhere."
Gah!!!
Let me suggest a couple of ways for you to address your complete lack of understanding of the natural world!
Most municipalities have these places where there are lots of books. These places are called "libraries". I would suggest you find the closest one, and seek out the section labeled "Science". If there is a science section in the "Juvenile" or "Young Adult" section, you should probably start there. You should look at some basic books on physics.
Also, there are these wonderful public educational institutions called "Community Colleges". Anyone who can pass a placement test can take courses there (one of my kids passed the English and Math Compass tests after completing 9th grade in high school). If you cannot pass the test they will still let you take classes, though usually under "Adult Basic Education" where they will help you make up the education that you seem to lack.
Posted by: HCN | January 7, 2009 3:40 PM
You do not seem to lack in ignorance not one bit.
Posted by: Del | January 7, 2009 3:46 PM
Del,
You wouldn't happen to be associated with Tom Tam, would you? I note that your IP address resolves to Massachusetts.
Posted by: Orac | January 7, 2009 3:51 PM
Well, if Mr. Sarill used Neuro-2a cells (mouse neuroblastoma), it wouldn't be too surprising for him to see them "revert back to normal", since they typically show a mix of ameboid and neuronal cell morphologies (for a picture, see: http://www.atcc.org/Attachments/1750.jpg ).
The fluorescent micrograph posted on his 'blog shows a lot of dead cells and one or two that may be apoptotic, although they are on the edge of the field. What he interprets as apoptosis may simply be cell death. Additionally, it's not too far a stretch to see apoptosis if his culture becomes infected with a virus, since many viral infections trigger apoptosis.
I commend Mr. Sarill on his attempt to test Tong Ren scientifically and the mistakes he made are not too dissimilar from those I've seen other people at his level make.
In addition to exposing the test and control cultures to the same conditions (e.g. taking them out of the incubator at the same time as the "test" cultures) except for the "treatment" being tested, he should also have someone who doesn't know which cultures were treated do the assessment.
Alternatively, he could have someone hand him the culture flask to be "treated" after covering the identifying label. That way, he wouldn't unconsciously find more "effect" in the treated cultures.
Unfortunately, Mr. Sarill seems unaware of his own limitations, which is fairly typical of people his age. I hope that he finds the time to do his experiments properly and then finds the courage to report his new findings.
Mr. Sarill has rather publicly claimed a significant finding (Tong Ren "cures" mouse neuroblastoma) with woefully inadequate data to support that claim. If he had tried to get these findings published - even in a peer-reviewed online journal - he would have had to correct the flaws in his experimental design prior to publication, which would have given him either better data to support his claims or an opportunity to privately retract incorrect findings. When (if?) he finally realizes his mistakes, he will discover how hard it is to eradicate embarrassing information from the Internet.
Best of luck, Miles.
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | January 7, 2009 3:53 PM
Orac said "You wouldn't happen to be associated with Tom Tam, would you?"
So that mish-mash of uneducated gobbely-gook was a sales pitch?
Posted by: HCN | January 7, 2009 3:59 PM
You mean like HIV/AIDS denialists? :-)
Posted by: Orac | January 7, 2009 4:09 PM
Im sorry Orac what was this discussion about again? I have no time to waste anymore on this blog. Good luck in you quest.
Sincerely
Del
Posted by: del | January 7, 2009 4:28 PM
Translation: "I don't want to explain why my woo works, I'm much too busy making money off it."
Funny, Del had plenty of time to wax poetic with his "ripples in the pond" metaphor, but as soon as you ask for a few facts, he's much too busy to waste time with us skeptics.
I've seen variations on this theme more often than I care to recall. It's a de facto admission that they can't play with the big boys and girls on a factual basis. If you don't immediately "accept" the knowledge they received from "Universal Consciousness", they immediately move on to more "open-minded" (i.e. gullible) prey.
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | January 7, 2009 4:45 PM
I understand how you feel, namely this sure looks like voodoo and it's inconceivable that people could be "cured in this way" or helped.
Now years ago I would have felt as you do, and, in fact, it still seems such a stretch, even for me. I can only tell you that I am experiencing massive, visible, coincidence, otherwise known as synchronicity and have been, daily for years since this began. I keep a profound record and yes, it sounds like a science fiction story but it is true. I couldn't possibly make up the connects as they are constantly unfolding. In addition to this, I can tell you that this is happening in my Poetry group in a visible way, and that this also has been happening in a writing group in Cambridge. Now everyone knows this is happening. Nobody is "brain dead". What people do not stop to do, is think about how or why this is happening, and it's in spades, meaning I seriously doubt that "chance" has anything to do with this, and I can also say, it's brilliant, meaning these stories are amazing.
I do know we're all connected to each other in more ways than we ever thought possible, or I couldn't keep this record going.
Scepticism is healthy and keep that sceptre, until you encounter personally something that shocks you, and sends your mind reeling. The "reel world" OR the "real world"?
I am saying there is more to all of this than you can possibly realize and what I have on paper, for those who are open minded enough to read this, might just change your thinking.
Posted by: ruth housman | July 25, 2009 2:44 PM
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data. Personal testimonies are anecdotes, not data.
Posted by: Chris | July 25, 2009 3:28 PM
You have a typical surgeons point of view, unfortunately. Limited to only one area of thought, that which can be proven scientifically. Tong Ren, like so many other unrecognized unconventional therapies cannot necessarily be proven scientifically and that makes it quackery I suppose. I suggest that you check out what is now referred to as "Quantum Communication", a form of communication whch many of us already knew existed for our selves, and which science has now proven it to exist. Now we can accept it as being true even though the limited-minded skeptics didn't believe us. There is much yet that science will probably never be able to prove to it's absolute satisfaction, but there are those of us who do not need to wait for their OK to "KNOW" the truth about that which does not conform to conventional-thinking minds and therefore to act upon it. Some day, maybe you will venture outside your safety zone, but probably not as long as you remain in the biased-surgeon mind-set. You are the WOO. Personally, I would rather be "wrong" and know the truth of anything, than be "right" and perpetrate the lie. Fear of being wrong is one of the most powerful fears and one that controls the minds of many physicians and surgeons, not to speak of the medical profession in general. Unfortunately it is seldom recognized for what it is by those who most need to be aware of it. As a surgeon, you have your value in medicine, and there is a need for your expertise, but you are out of your league here. Your focus is too limited and blinded by your bias. I leave you with this thought "Go where no man has gone before and leave a trail for others to follow."
And to you, Ruth, Hurray! You do not need scientific proof. You are the proof. Sorry to be so late in finding this blog. I hope to come back and find more has been posted.
1
Posted by: Virginia Marques | December 7, 2009 10:15 PM
It took you how many months to formulate that rambling comment? Which proved you have absolutely no idea what "quantum" means.
Posted by: Chris | December 7, 2009 10:36 PM
As someone with a degree in physics I feel I can tell you, Virginia Marques, that you are ignorant. I spent years learning about quantum mechanics, actually learning about physics, and you come in here mindlessly tossing around words you do not understand, full of pride and such hubris. Sit down, learn a bit of math, learn some quantum mechanics from a real textbook, and then you can come back and let me know if you still think what you wrote makes a lick of sense.
Posted by: Travis | December 7, 2009 11:02 PM
To Orac, I am back again with another thought. Are you still there? We, the "impossibility thinkers," as i like to refer to our kind of thinking, need your input to keep us on track; so that we don't become complacent in our beliefs, but keep checking them out for credibility. Like torpedoes, we need your skepticism to keep us on the targot. The more I read these blogs posted since your original one in 2008, the clearer my view becomes. I was only just introduced to the Tong Ren therapy by my Doctor, who, incidentally, is no quack, a few weeks ago. He had been a practicing physician for many years, but recently joined an alternative/complementry medicine clinic. He was called by those in his conventional practice, "the weird doctor". Give me more "weird" doctors. God bless him. He is not stuck in "Flat-earth thinking" as I call it. He is constantly seeking new approaches. I hope there will be more posts on this site as I just found this toda. As Karen Armstrong says, "Belief is the end of thinking"
Posted by: Virginia Marques | December 7, 2009 11:23 PM
Wait, Travis, you have a degree in physics and pretend to be a biologist? I am a pretend biologist, pretend physicist, a former engineer, and now after the mid-term I took this afternoon... an ex-grad student ---- but am a real recreational gardener! The quantum physics of photosynthesis is fascinating to me. I am freaked out that the photons hitting a leaf power the mechanisms that turn water and carbon dioxide gas into the long sugar molecules that make up the plant!
Now I need to go up into my little greenhouse and encourage the baby lettuce and basil to keep growing. The lemons are turning yellow (but the plant suffered from spider mites... I want it to grow new leaves!).
Posted by: Chris | December 7, 2009 11:24 PM
Wow Chris, you put my meandering life to shame!
I wonder if you can make use of this "Quantum Communication" to help your plants grow? I sure hope it really works. Make sure to report back any results. Try to make more sense though, I really do not understand what Virginia is trying to get at, especially in that last rather random post.
Posted by: Travis | December 7, 2009 11:32 PM
Sorry, Travis, the only quantum stuff my plants are going to get is pure sunshine. Amazing what it does in a greenhouse. The outside air temperature never broke above the freezing temp of water, 32o F, but in the greenhouse it hit over 75o F (and without supplemental heat!).
Posted by: Chris | December 8, 2009 12:09 AM
Oh, and thanks for the kudos. I need it after deciding to become a grad-school dropout for the second time!
Posted by: Chris | December 8, 2009 12:11 AM
Wow, I am really glad to know tha someone was really there. I wonder just what brought you there. I am disappointed, though.
My reference to "Quantum Communication", as it is called and which science hss now proven to exist, has apparently been taken out of context. See the following links:
www.voiceentertainment.net/movies/quantumcommunicati
www.physorg.com/news108217803.html
eve.physics.ox.ac.uk/NewWeb/Research/communication/co
And there is more in "Search" under "Quantum Communication", and then wipe the egg off of your faces.
There are some things that science probably will never be able to prove, but they are still valid inspite of this. Some of us do not need to wait for the OK. Maybe Science will catch up some day.
Incidentally, it is none of my business what you may think of me. Just pay attention to the subject of the blog referred to which was posted by Orac. Your responses are irrelevant. Silly boys!
Posted by: Virginia Marques | December 8, 2009 12:46 AM
Umm, if you look at this blog it is clear people are here. There is a panel on the left that shows the posts people have made, so people were able to see that you had posted on this old thread.
Okay, your first link is an ad for a DVD. A DVD with a bunch of talking heads is not how you do science.
Your second link is a popular article from physorg about real research. But that research does not demonstrate what you are talking about. This entanglement concept is not surprising to anyone that has studied quantum mechanics, grab any quantum mechanics textbook and have a look. If wikipedia has a big article about the topic it probably is not that unknown or surprising.
No idea what the third link was, you copied it incorrectly (same with the first link but I could figure out what it was supposed to be).
But, you did not present anything, you gave no evidence, no argument. All I saw was a mangling of quantum mechanics, and vague statements about communication via it. People throw "quantum" around like it explains everything that is weird. It does not. To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Quantum mechanics is not magic. There is math behind it, it can be tested. It is not always intuitive, but it works pretty well.
Posted by: Travis | December 8, 2009 1:21 AM
Blogging is not something a usually do, so i don't know the ins and outs, or about the left side of the page, etc. This is not my territory anyway. My mistake. So I guess you didn't know what post or person I was responding to so you missed the point completely and went off on some wild goose chase. My reference to "Quantum Communication" was an EXAMPLE
of how science is slow to accept that which is outside of the scientific realm. It had nothing to do with the subject of my comment regarding Tong Ren Therapy and Oric's surgeon's bias and his criticism of it. Your remarks, as i have said were irrelevant.
If I get the time and have nothing else to do except to quibble with you over words, I may post a response to your quibbling. You are out of your league. You don't really want to "entangle"with me. But for now I have more important ways to use my time. So I am out of here Nice, to not know you.
Posted by: Virginia Marques | December 8, 2009 6:15 AM
So let me get this straight. It's not off-topic for you to introduce "Quantum Communication", which would support your point if it worked the way you think it does. But then if someone who knows more about quantum mechanics than you do points out that it doesn't work the way you think it does, and therefore doesn't support your point, that's off-topic.
Oooh, gosh, we're out of our league. Why, I bet that skeptics are committing suicide by the hundreds rather than "entangle" with Virginia's mighty debating skills.
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar | December 8, 2009 8:55 AM
Virginia, you would embarrass yourself lots less if you actually understood what the words you are using mean. Perhaps you should go and take an introductory course in physics, especially one that lets you actually do the Young's Double Slit experiment in a lab.
Plus, my dear woman... not all of us are boys.
Posted by: Chris | December 8, 2009 9:50 AM
Umm, shouldn't you pick an example that has now been accepted then? Because your example is not supported by science or evidence, you seem to be assuming this quantum communication is true and that most scientists are just slow at picking up on it. You need to actually have some evidence that it is correct to even begin thinking like that. As it stands now it is just some empty hypothesis.
Posted by: Travis | December 8, 2009 1:44 PM
On the bus I had one more thought. Even if it was just an example your link to the physorg site, to the story about entanglement, shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. It certainly does not support the idea that science was slow to catch onto these ideas. The concept discussed in that story was very well accepted for a very long time. The measurement was the new thing.
Posted by: Travis | December 8, 2009 2:51 PM