Greetings and best wishes for 2010! What a busy year-end it’s been–and what a great year! 2009 was certainly an exceptional year, and not just in bad ways.
I’ll write more about that later, but for today, I’d like to show you a quick case.
Take a look at the following PIE Graph:
What do you think?
Honestly, if someone showed me this PIE without any other information, I’d think, “Hmm. Score is just a bit low, but really not too bad, and only 3 imbalanced meridians.” Is that something like what you thought as well?
Now let me tell you the rest of the story. This is the graph of a 61 year old female with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity, peripheral neuropathy, and a multitude of health problems. She is barely able to stand and walk. She has a 50+ pack year smoking history.
Now what do you think of that PIE score?
This is obviously a very sick woman, but she still managed to look pretty good on paper. What went wrong?
To answer that question, you’ll need to see her baseline graph.
So scroll down.
…
A bit more.
…
Keep going.
…
And…
Here it is:
Notice anything in particular?
I’ll tell you what struck me right away: This is easily the lowest overall graph I’ve ever seen. Her mean is just 15. Her Chi is so low, it barely registers at all.
Her Chi is so low, in fact, that determination of splits, excesses, and deficiencies is nearly impossible, and most meridians, though barely functional, show as green. This, in turn, makes the PIE score look better than it otherwise would.
This brings me to the point of today’s entry: There are certain, rare situations where a person can be so sick, they fall outside the realm of what the computer can even interpret. Clearly, this patient needs help, and fast, and clearly we would all provide that help if she were our patient, regardless of how the PIE score looks.
Now I’m not saying she should have the ambulance on speed dial…but then again it wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
So the lesson here is that no computer will ever replace your intelligence and ability to reason. The PIE model, while very robust and useful, is still just a tool to enhance your own abilities, not to replace them, and certain patients can fall outside its parameters.
Not to worry, though. Probably 99% of the patients you’ll see will fall comfortably in the realm of PIE score reliability, and everything will match up and look as you expect. But just in case you run into one of the outliers, now you’ll know.
By the way, the practitioner who sent me this graph also performed a heart rate variability study on this patient at the same time.
It suggested an ambulance should be called – No Chi is no chi.
MANY THANKS to the AcuGraph user who sent this informative case! Do you have one to share? Send it in! share@miridiatech.com
To learn more about working with Low Qi levels follow these links:
Click here to see Kimberly’s original article
Click here to see Dr. Teo’s study
Be sure to get your free copy of Dr. Jake Fratkin’s review of TCM -vs- Meridian Therapy. CLICK HERE:
I have had scores which had an average of 8. These people appeared relatively healthy or were depressed fibromyalgia types but fairly mobile. My equipment is older, I am saving for an upgrade.
If you averaged all your readings for people over the last few months where would it be? I have had a few people with averages over 100 but mostly it’s below 60 or 70.
Hi Ellen,
Thanks for the great question. Actually, a study of just over 100,000 graphs from users shows the mean is about 90 for men and about 80 for women.
–Adrian
Yes, I’ve seen baseline graphs similar like this one on many old patients, especially they who suffered from haemorrhagic stroke, or hepatic cirrhosis, or severe depression. Eventhough the colour is green, these patients need therapy right away to increase their Chi level.
Thanks for sharing Dr. Larsen,,,
This graph reminds me of 2 cases from years past, pre-Acugraph equipment.
One was a late 40’s female, chronic pain issues, maybe FMS. A short time later, a week or two, she died in her sleep. I never found out the cause of death.
The second was the graph of a colleague who was dying of a brain tumor. He passed a few days later.
Bottom line? If I ever see a graph like that again, I will be on highest alert! They are dying!! Whether they know it or not.
Treatment suggestions? I would probably start with Akabane points. How about you??
Hello from Holland, I had a similar case.
60 year old man came with complaints tired and losing weight.He had been in hospital but everything was oke. pie was 28 and after 3 treatments 70. Two weeks later they operated him and he found out kidney cancer, and a few months to live. kidney meridian was green.
Hi,
I also have had a patient this morning with a very low graph with a high PIE score as every meridian showed green but the average is only 9.
The acugraph recommended to treat the Tsing points, I am not familiar with this and was wondering what you all do for this. Do you needle all the Tsing points in one treatment, it seems a lot, and what is the reasoning behind this.
I am very worried about this patient and any help would be appreciated.
Thanks for any help
Treating the Tsing (Jing Well) points opens up the musculotendino channels and helps increase qi in the main channels. This is why it’s recommended when the qi level is very low. Yes, you can needle all the points, though it will not be comfortable for the patient. A better approach might be to use laser or electric stim. I often have patients laser their points at home for several days.
from my experience with other mead devices such low readings are definitely a critical sign.
We usually at this point focus on increasing the energy levels of the client. Herbs are quick way to do so – i usually favor Ginseng. It does a good job in bringing the energy levels up and revealing the true graph of the client.
However Ginseng is not recommended for cancer cases, cos it can end up energizing the tumor as well. A good nutritional shake should help there.
What an incredibly important post to read, comments are also great. What a great software to have on hand, once again, to show such important information about a patient that you may not be able to “see”.