• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Qigong, could it work?

Thyreus

New Blood
T
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
4
Well basically I ran in to a debate with someone concerning psychic abilities etc. which turned in to me trying to explain most of the things he threw at me in a rational way, or just to give examples of how it could work without having to involve any psychic abilities... Most people here probably know what that's like by now. :p

Anyway, then he gave me this link (see bellow), which - if true - reports some pretty good evidence that there's actually effects of Qi that can't be explained by anything I could think of. They've tested it on humans, animals and plants, and they've eliminated placebo by having a control person who would mimick a Qigong master to the control group.

wwwdotqigonginstitutedotorg/html/papers/Qi_on_humans_animals&cellsdotpdf

Replace "dot" with dots (.).

Now I could explain this in any way, except that it might actually work, and that someday you might even be able to make a science out of it.

But since I'm a skeptic and just can't get the feeling that this can't be right out of my head - I posted it here to see if anyone here knows more about this, maybe has seen similar things and debunked them before. Anything to help me understand this would be greatly appreciated.
 
The link; http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/papers/Qi_on_humans_animals&cells.pdf

Look at it it again. They keep mentioning studies, even giving detailed numbers presumably from them, but they fail to index a single reference study to their claims. So I scroll to the bottom to see if the reference list even exist. Seems to be mostly a list of symposiums and conferences (red herring). Reference number 13 is "Rein, G., Laskow, L., private communication". What's that @#$# supposed to be? The best 'sounding' reference is your original link, "American Journal of Acupuncture, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1991". They reference each others cerebral diarrhea to lend themselves the perception of legitimacy.
 
Hi Thyreus. Deja vu. I was also attracted to this forum to try to answer a similar question, and all the answers you are going to get are:

- useless ones (gord)
- simplistic ones (my-wan), overall the best ones, at least they are factual
- dismissive ones (you have not had one yet, they are along the lines of: studying qi would be like studying unicorns - we already know they do not exist, so what's the point).

Unfortunately, if you want serious research about qi, you will have to

- find reputable scientists not worried about losing their reputation
- pay them enough to make it worth their while to do it.

You wouldn't be Bill Gates, by any chance?:D

Cheers
 
Hey thinktoomuch.

I agree that such studies should be done. We never know the outcome until we look. But someone has to be interested enough in it, and to consider the chances that the result will lead someone likely enough, to actually do it. I guess there are a lot of other things to study, and this one just doesn't show that much promise. But what about all the QiGong guys? The teachers, the practitioners, those who go to practitioners for healing, etc. They should be able to finance a decent study to see if what they're doing actually has any effect.
And if they're interested in the real answer, they'll do so scientifically through controlled experiments.


Aside from that, not much more to add.
 
Thinktoomuch said:
Hi Thyreus. Deja vu. I was also attracted to this forum to try to answer a similar question, and all the answers you are going to get are:

- useless ones (gord)
- simplistic ones (my-wan), overall the best ones, at least they are factual
- dismissive ones (you have not had one yet, they are along the lines of: studying qi would be like studying unicorns - we already know they do not exist, so what's the point).

Unfortunately, if you want serious research about qi, you will have to

- find reputable scientists not worried about losing their reputation
- pay them enough to make it worth their while to do it.

You wouldn't be Bill Gates, by any chance?:D

Cheers
Click to expand...

There is good reason why the only answers available are simplistic etc. The only explanation why references are so obscure and full of red herrings is because they want to create beliefs not establish facts. If good references actually existed this fluff wouldn't be necessary. So even if there are benefits to Qigong the practitioners have no idea what those benefits might be. They only know what they believe. So providing more than a simplistic answer requires that the (more than simplistic) information exist. So long as practitioners stick to the belief side of it and rely on the games played in the referenced link for legitimacy it will never (like unicorns) exist.

The theory side of the whole thing is obviously so much barf. Given that meditation, breathing exercises, relaxation, visualizations, movements, etc. are used variously with the over 3000 brands of Qigong it is near certain that physiological responses can be identified in some individual. I could just as easily claim sneaking up on people and yelling "Boo" must be good for them because I can definitely identify physiological changes. Besides it's more fun.

If any benefit can be identified I can guarantee the benefit can be had far more efficiently by other means. The exercise is certainly a benefit.
 
Yep, what you both said.
Thyreus, the easiest way to counter that article is to point out that it is 17 years old, something more convincing would have emerged in this time if the premises had been solid. Also, that's about the time when the famous Rose experiment debunked Therapeutic Touch, which is based on the same "energy emission" principle. Seems that it all went underground after that.
 
my_wan said:
Reference number 13 is "Rein, G., Laskow, L., private communication". What's that @#$# supposed to be?
Click to expand...

In all fairness, this can be a perfectly legitimate reference sometimes, and is one I have used myself. For example, if something in a paper is a little unclear or has been abrieviated for publication you will ask the authors for clarification, and anything that comes out of that is likely to exist only as e-mails or similar. It depends very much on the context. If a private communication is supporting a single equation then it may be legitimate, however, if it gives the basis of the whole theory then it isn't really worth much.

In this case it appears to be refering to a statement giving the results of a study on the effects of Qi on cell cultures, and does not appear to be supported by any published references. It is completely worthless.
 
On Qi Claims

Thyreus said:
I posted it here to see if anyone here knows more about this, maybe has seen similar things and debunked them before. Anything to help me understand this would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Here's how it racks up for me:

1) Qi claims are rampant in some parts of the world.
2) Qi claims do not agree with established laws of science.
3) There are no rigorous studies which confirm Qi claims.
4) There is no evidence that Qi is real.
5) There's a million dollars waiting for the first person to demonstrate the existence of Qi.

6) Therefore, the chance that Qi is made-up imaginary nonsense approaches 100%.

Someone point out where I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Scott said:
Here's how it racks up for me:

1) Qi claims are rampant in some parts of the world.
2) Qi claims do not agree with established laws of science.
3) There are no rigorous studies which confirm Qi claims.
4) There is no evidence that Qi is real.
5) There's a million dollars waiting for the first person to demonstrate the existence of Qi.

6) Therefore, the chance that Qi is made-up imaginary nonsense approaches 100%.

Someone point out where I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Hey! I think I summarized the above in my first post! :blush:
 
Thanks for your replies. I don't think I'll be able to make anyone else see clear by bringing them up, but at least they helped me to.

I should probably have given up my debate a long time ago anyway, seeing as the person I'm debating with is a martial arts expert. As I think Randi pointed out more than once it's pointless trying to tell the people who belive in something that they're wrong, it's better to convince the ones who have yet to make up their mind.
 
Well, Qigong works as exercise. I do it myself sometimes, and it's pretty good as low-impact aerobics. I don't believe in the psychic stuff alongside it, but if that's what you mean, then it's fake.
 
Yes, Qigong works as exercise. It can have positive effects on concentration and muscle co-ordination, and may even be fun. I know someone who does Aikido for the fun side: he says it's like a sort of dance, but improvised, where you have to be on the ball all the time so you don't get knocked over.

But there's no evidence for all the woo stuff about Qi being a force (or whatever). Qigong "masters" emit infrasonic energy? :confused:
 
Michael C said:
I know someone who does Aikido for the fun side: he says it's like a sort of dance, but improvised, where you have to be on the ball all the time so you don't get knocked over.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on the dojo. My experience is that different dojos emphasize different aspects of the training; some take it more lightly, some get more physical. Mine tends to concentrate more on practical effectivity and weapon practice.

I don't think I ever heard the word "qi" on the mat. Some instructors are apparently more spiritual and like to use the metaphor of "energy" and its flow and your control of it; others hate that, they strictly talk about breathing, tension, alertness etc. and are quick to mention that the "energy" is nothing but a visualization tool. I think both ways are similarly inadequate to explain to your subconscious mind (which is really quite dumb) how to naturally move your body, without much thinking, in certain very specific ways. I don't think there's really any good way to explain it with words; ultimately, you just have to learn that on your own from practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom