Re: throat chakra hot spot



"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
news:p[email protected]...
>
> "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 23:59:03 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Qi cannot be detected or measured, and your "first hand experience"
> will be
> > >insufficient evidence to earn you that Nobel.
> >
> > So, you have designed and carried out experiments, or read reports of
> > experiments designed and carried out by others (perhaps something
> > similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the idea of
> > an ether for explaining the behavior of light), that demonstrate that
> > qi cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the
> > publication information or a URL please?
>
> Do you feel that qi can be detected and measured in some way that would
> provide acceptable evidence of its existence to the scientific community?
>

Do you feel that there is a way to disprove the existence of Qi in a way
that would make people stop doing QiGong?
 
"Earl John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> news:p[email protected]...
> >
> > "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > So, you have designed and carried out experiments, or read reports of
> > > experiments designed and carried out by others (perhaps something
> > > similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment that disproved the idea of
> > > an ether for explaining the behavior of light), that demonstrate that
> > > qi cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the
> > > publication information or a URL please?
> >
> > Do you feel that qi can be detected and measured in some way that would
> > provide acceptable evidence of its existence to the scientific
community?
>
> Do you feel that there is a way to disprove the existence of Qi in a way
> that would make people stop doing QiGong?

Certainly not. Nor is there any way to disprove the notion that the earth
was directly created by God 6000 years ago in such a way as to make people
stop some people from believing it.

I'm not evangelizing. I'm asking a question.
 
Tom wrote:
> "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote
>>qi cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the
>>publication information or a URL please?
>
> Do you feel that qi can be detected and measured in some way that would
> provide acceptable evidence of its existence to the scientific community?

Well first we'd have to train the lab rats in qi gong
(presumably not the rats who were given dental amalgams, as that might
interfere with the energies)

Then grade them, maybe: Brown belt qi-rats; black belt qi-rats?
Just have to find a qi gong lab rat teacher.
Maybe the rat dentician knows one.
"teenage mutant ninja rodents"

Here's one abstract, but with a sad ending: they sacrificed the main
characters.
From a study by the University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson-Medical School,
Newark, NJ 08854, USA.
"A preliminary study of the effect of external qigong on lymphoma growth
in mice."

OBJECTIVE:
To examine the effectiveness of external qigong on the in vivo growth of
transplantable murine lymphoma cells in mice.

BACKGROUND:
Qigong is a traditional Chinese health practice that is believed by many
to have special preventive and healing power. Underlying the system is
the belief in the existence of a subtle energy (qi), which circulates
throughout the body, and when strengthened or balanced, can improve
health and ward off or slow the progress of disease.

To date, much of the literature showing the effects of qi are presented
in the non-Western literature, and as such are viewed with considerable
skepticism.

In an attempt to demonstrate qi in a controlled setting, the effect of
external qigong emission from a qigong healer on the in vivo growth of
transplantable murine lymphoma cells in mice was explored in two pilot
studies.

METHODS:
In study 1, 30 SJL/J mice were injected intravenously with lymphoma
cells that localize and exhibit aggressive growth in the lymphoid
tissues of untreated syngeneic recipients.

These tumor-injected mice were divided into 3 groups:
(1). qigong treatment (administered by a qigong healer);
(2). sham treatment; and
(3). no-treatment control.

The sham group received the same number of treatments from a person
without training in qigong, who imitated the motions of the qigong
healer. The control group received no treatment at all.

In study 1, the mice were sacrificed on the 9th or 11th days after
tumor-cell injection, and in study 2, the mice were sacrificed on the
10th and 13th days. Tumor growth in lymph nodes (LN) was estimated by LN
weight expressed as a percentage of total body weight.

RESULTS:
In study 1, LNs from mice in the qigong-treated group were significantly
smaller than LN from mice in either the control group or in the sham
treatment group (p < 0.05), suggesting that there was less tumor growth
in the qigong-treated mice.

In study 2, using the same design as study 1, the same pattern of
difference found in study 1 emerged: LN ratio from mice in the
qigong-treated group was smaller than that in either the control group
or in the sham group. However, these results did not reach statistical
significance, partially as a result of larger variances in all groups in
this study.

CONCLUSIONS:
These preliminary results, while still inconclusive, suggest that qigong
treatment from one particular qigong practitioner might influence the
growth of lymphoma cells negatively. Further studies with different
practitioners, more repeated trials, and/or different tumor models are
needed to further investigate the effects of external qigong on tumor
growth in mice.
J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Oct;8(5):615-21.
Chen KW, Shiflett SC, Ponzio NM, He B, Elliott DK, Keller SE.
http://tinyurl.com/fjqx

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve
&db=PubMed&list_uids=12470443&dopt=Abstract
 
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:48:53 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Before considering yourself qualified to criticise my commentary, please
>learn the concept that it is impossible to prove a negative. Can you prove
>that you cannot play the banjo?

Oh my. So clever. One might think that your primary purpose is not to
shed light on the subject of qi, but rather to just argue for the sake
of arguing, or perhaps just to show how clever you are.

I can prove that the square root of 2 is not a rational number by
assuming that it is rational. The Michelson-Morley experiment referred
to earlier disproved the concept of an ether as used to explain the
behavior of light.

If one postulates the existence of qi and then designs an experiment
based on the existence of qi, then either the results will be in
accord with your supposition, or they will not. If your experiment is
well designed, and your results do not support your supposition, then
the supposition, namely, the existence of qi, is false. This is quite
different from proving that "you can't play the banjo", although I can
certainly demonstrate that you *didn't* play the banjo at a given
time.

Now, begone! before someone drops a house on you!

Glinda the Good Witch of the North
 
>Subject: Re: throat chakra hot spot
>From: [email protected] (Nadie Niemand)
>Date: 6/29/2003 12:12 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:48:53 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Before considering yourself qualified to criticise my commentary, please
>>learn the concept that it is impossible to prove a negative. Can you prove
>>that you cannot play the banjo?
>
>Oh my. So clever. One might think that your primary purpose is not to
>shed light on the subject of qi, but rather to just argue for the sake
>of arguing, or perhaps just to show how clever you are.

Isn't it a pity the self esteem needs boosting.

Rich is here for entertainment.

You might want to read this.

Rich Shewmaker wrote:

I believe that God does not exist. And I believe that all alternative medicine
is quackery. And I believe that these are both reasonable assumptions until I
am proven wrong.

Jan

>I can prove that the square root of 2 is not a rational number by
>assuming that it is rational. The Michelson-Morley experiment referred
>to earlier disproved the concept of an ether as used to explain the
>behavior of light.
>
>If one postulates the existence of qi and then designs an experiment
>based on the existence of qi, then either the results will be in
>accord with your supposition, or they will not. If your experiment is
>well designed, and your results do not support your supposition, then
>the supposition, namely, the existence of qi, is false. This is quite
>different from proving that "you can't play the banjo", although I can
>certainly demonstrate that you *didn't* play the banjo at a given
>time.
>
>Now, begone! before someone drops a house on you!
>
>Glinda the Good Witch of the North
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>, karuna <[email protected]>
wrote:

> CONCLUSIONS:
> These preliminary results, while still inconclusive, suggest that qigong
> treatment from one particular qigong practitioner might influence the
> growth of lymphoma cells negatively. Further studies with different
> practitioners, more repeated trials, and/or different tumor models are
> needed to further investigate the effects of external qigong on tumor
> growth in mice.

Now, that's how science is done... And there are two interesting things
to observe (as per my posting on alt.meditation.qigong - hadn't noticed
that this thread was running on multiple groups):

1. the reductive nature of science means that such an experiment can
establish that something very specific is happening, but not anything
general: to a sceintist, this isn't 'proof' that qi exists, it's proof
that one qigong practitioner was able to influence some autoimmune
function in some mice with a particular pre-identified condition - s/he
could have done it by mouse-hypnosis, as far as the scientists are
concerned;

2. this - and other studies like it - get completely ignored byt eh
mainstream scientific community: it's news they don't really want to
hear, because there's not even a hint of a scientific model that could
explain it: and as a result, the science community collectively agrees
to hasve no interest in it - and as a result of that there's no funding,
and that means no reasearch - and that means no more uncomfortable
results to challenge the establishment view. That's how science works.
Sometimes it's good, often it's bad. But then, any culture works the
same way, it's not just scientists... Consensus *matters*. It's human.

What would an experiment to prove qi exists look like? How would it be
designed? interesting questions...

Best wishes to you all,

Richard
 
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:22:56 +0000 (UTC), Richard Burke-Ward
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What would an experiment to prove qi exists look like? How would it be
>designed? interesting questions...

Pressed the send button too soon! One last thought: before we knew
about X-rays, what would an experiment to prove that X-rays exist look
like? How would it be designed? Then, same questions, but after the
fact, know that we know what it is?

It seems to me that to start with, there has to be some sort of
observation, then some sort of speculation as to the mechanism. Once
you have a conjecture about the mechanism, shouldn't be too hard to
design an experiment to show if the idea is false. Just as a simple
example, if you wanted to speculate that emitted qi was some form of
low power, low frequency electromagnetic radiation, you could build
machines to emit and detect various frequencies or combinations of
frequencies or varying frequencies and compare the effect machines
have on, say, mice, or bacteria colonies or whatever, and compare with
the effect that qigong practitioners have on the mice or bacteria
colonies, and you could try to measure the power and frequency of the
radiation emitted (or not emitted!) by the qigong practitioners and
look for correlations or contradictions. Of course, getting the
funding for expensive machinery is another question. It's a matter of
do we have the will or the need to spend the money on this sort of
research?

Garry
 
"Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote
> > qi cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the
publication information or a URL please?
> >
> Do you feel that qi can be detected and measured in some way that
would provide acceptable evidence of its existence to the scientific
community?
>

"A preliminary study of the effect of external qigong on lymphoma growth
in mice."
http://tinyurl.com/fjqx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve
&db=PubMed&list_uids=12470443&dopt=Abstract
-----

Here is another, a small pilot study that found alterations in blood
levels of cortisol and cytokines (Free full text article on line):
"Changes in cytokine production in healthy subjects practicing Guolin
Qigong : a pilot study."
Division of Clinical Immunology, Pathology Department,
Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND:
Practice of Qigong has been reported to alter immunological function,
but there have been few studies of its effects on cytokines, the key
regulators of immunity.

METHODS:
Numbers of peripheral blood cytokine-secreting cells were determined by
ELISPOT in 19 healthy volunteers aged 27 - 55, before they were taught
the practice of Qigong and after 3, 7 and 14 weeks of daily practice.
The effect of Qigong on blood cortisol was also examined.

RESULTS:
Numbers of IL4 and IL12-secreting cells remained stable.
IL6 increased at 7 weeks and TNFalpha increased in unstimulated cultures
at 3 and 7 weeks but decreased at these times in LPS and SAC-stimulated
cultures.
Of particular interest, IFNgamma-secreting cells increased and
IL10-secreting cells decreased in PHA-stimulated cultures, resulting in
significant increases in the IFNgamma:IL10 ratio.
Cortisol, a known inhibitor of type 1 cytokine production, was reduced
by practicing Qigong.

CONCLUSION:
These preliminary studies in healthy subjects, although not necessarily
representative of a randomized healthy population and not including a
separate control group, have indicated that blood levels of the
stress-related hormone cortisol may be lowered by short-term practice of
Qigong and that there are concomitant changes in numbers of
cytokine-secreting cells. Further studies of the effect of Qigong in
patients with clinical diseases known to be associated with type 2
cytokine predominance are merited.
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2001;1(1):8. Epub 2001 Oct 18 Jones BM.
http://tinyurl.com/flb6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve
&db=PubMed&list_uids=11696251&dopt=Abstract
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Nadie Niemand) wrote:

> But that's the way it's
> always been, slow, slow progress by teensy, tiny steps. Then once the
> radical stuff finally becomes mainstream, it's etched in stone and
> more, teensy, tiny steps are necessary before the next breakthrough.
> However, the really good, cutting edge research is not being pumped
> out via the news media to Joe Blow on the street, so most of the
> people that have been arguing in this thread have neither done nor
> read any research, nor really thought about what it takes to do good
> science on the subject. They just assumed from the get-go that there's
> nothing to investigate and that qigong practitioners aren't
> experiencing anything except a fantasy. Qi may or may not be what we
> think it is, but there is definitely some sort of phenomenon taking
> place, and even if it's just some sort of mass psychosis that is
> transferred by training, that alone would make it worth investigating.
> The purpose of science is to understand the universe, including
> ourselves.

Garry,

I couldn't have put any of that any better. I absolutely agree. There is
a faint whiff of change - but given the startling claims made for qi
(from scientists' perspectives), the pace of change on this issue is
going to be slower than most. There is a lot negative momentum to
overcome... but we'll get there. i do agree, though, that by the time
science has finished exploring the phenomenon, they may not be calling
it qi any more.

Health and happiness to you,

Richard
 
Rich Shewmaker wrote:
>
> Before considering yourself qualified to criticise my commentary, please
> learn the concept that it is impossible to prove a negative.

No, it isn't. What you are claiming is purely paradoxical. If it were
impossible to prove a negative you could then reasonably infer that no
negative proof exists, contradicting the premise.

Even the weaker but more consistent form 'no negative has been proven'
is false, as there are various counterexamples.

> Can you prove
> that you cannot play the banjo?

Could someone prove that there are no words with more than eight letters
in this sentence?
 
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:39:56 GMT, "Tom" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> > Do you feel that qi can be detected and measured in some way that would
>> > provide acceptable evidence of its existence to the scientific
>community?
>>
>> Why do some people need scientific proof for everything?
>
>I don't. I didn't ask for scientific proof of everything. You have
>neglected to notice that I was following up a statement made by Nadie
>Neimand in which she seems to indicate that qi *is* detectable and
>measurable, so I asked this question to clarify her statement.

You are just chock full of assumptions, false claims, and iIlogic
based on no facts or either deliberate or completely incompetent
interpretation of others statements and questions. One might think
that your point is not to learn something, but rather simply to argue.


First wrong assumption: the fake name associated with the fake e-mail
address I post under is "Nadie"--Spanish for "Nobody",
"Niemand"--German for "Nobody". Had you actually *read* my post, you
would have seen that the name signed at the end of it was "Garry".
BTW, just so's you'll know, Garry is a masculine name, not a feminine
one. But this is probably all in vain anyways since you don't actually
read other people's posts for comprehension; you're just trying really
hard to get a flame war started and keep it going, no?

2nd wrong assumption: YOU stated that qi is undetectable and
unmeasurable. I asked YOU to provide evidence of your claim. Asking
you to provide evidence of a claim of non-existence is NOT the same as
claiming existence. It is perfectly valid just to say, "there is no
scientific proof one way or the other at this time." BTW, we're still
waiting for either proof of your claim, or else at the very least a
qualification of your prior statement, if not an out and out
retraction. You could say "As far as I know, qi is not detectable or
measurable" and that might be a true statement. But just not very
useful for your purposes, huh? You need a really *strong* statement to
get a good flame going, don't you? Just saying "AFAIK" just leaves
you open to personal attacks about why you are even arguing about a
subject of which you are completely ignorant.

So, either you are a very poor reader and a completely inept logician,
or else you are a flamer. Which is it? I personally vote for:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame11.html

>I can measure the vibrations in the air that are identified as music. I
>can measure the frequencies of the tones and record and replay the music as
>it is produced. I can play that music for anyone who claims music doesn't
>exist.

You mean, like a person who has been deaf from birth? Can you show
this person that the music is qualitatively different from other forms
of vibration, different in such a way that it is beautiful and
pleasing to the ear? Can you communicate what music is to the deaf
person? Can you teach them to distinguish between good music and bad?
Can you do it scientifically?

>Can we do that with qi?

Do you have functional eyes and ears and are you willing to look and
listen? Or are you just a flamer?

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html

>"Awareness" is an internal experience. I can be aware of a whole bunch of
>things that exist entirely within my imagination and have no correlation at
>all to external events. Those can't be detected or measured either. Could
>qi be like that?

Yes, it could. Then again, maybe it isn't. Music could be like that,
to a deaf person. Color and art paintings could be like that to a
blind person. BTW, science is conducted by looking at evidence and
evaluating it. Have you looked at any? I didn't think so, Mr. Flamer.

>You asked me why some people need scientific proof of everything. So I'll
>ask you a question, too. Why do some people need to object to such
>questions?

And why do some people need to answer a question with a question
without answering what they were asked when they were the first to
make a strong claim? Perhaps because they have no evidence to back up
their position? Hmmm?

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html

Have a nice life! :)

<Plonk>

Garry
 
Tom wrote:

> I don't. I didn't ask for scientific proof of everything. You have
> neglected to notice that I was following up a statement made by Nadie
> Neimand in which she seems to indicate that qi *is* detectable and
> measurable, so I asked this question to clarify her statement.

Ahem... I guess you didn't see the signature...? Nadie Niemand, aka
Garry. She's a he....

sue
 
Tom wrote:
>
> "suzee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Tom wrote:
> >
> > > I don't. I didn't ask for scientific proof of everything. You have
> > > neglected to notice that I was following up a statement made by Nadie
> > > Neimand in which she seems to indicate that qi *is* detectable and
> > > measurable, so I asked this question to clarify her statement.
> >
> > Ahem... I guess you didn't see the signature...? Nadie Niemand, aka
> > Garry. She's a he....
>
> So he pointed out while he was flaming me and then running for his
> killfile.
>
> Can you tell me how that is relevant to the question I asked him? Is this
> an excuse to avoid answering the question?
>
> Since Garry has elected to stop his ears, I'll just ask around and get some
> opinions, if anybody's willing to consider it for a moment. How about you,
> "suzeeq"? Do you feel that qi is detectable or measurable in a scientific
> way? Why or why not?

Why answer you? Plenty already have and you don't seem to care about the
answers... one way or the other.

sue
 
"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > You may be right, but that's not what a lot of people mean by qi. On
> > the other hand, I don't know that any of those people have any way of
> > measuring it. I do know someone who claims to have a sort of
> > "compass" that can show you where the qi is particularly strong (in a
> > room, say), but I've never seen it in action and I have no idea how it
> > works.
>
> I'd be very interested to know if anyone has examined this device
> carefully.

IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of
experience. I can understand your need to quantify or measure the
energy since this post was really about pain in the throat chakra. If
this person has pain in that region they should see a physician. It
may be organic in nature. I myself am very skeptical of claims that
qi or raising kundalini can cause harm by overloading the nervous
system. I have not had that experience.

I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and
bone breathing techniques, and the Western Middle Pillar exercise,
along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises have improved
my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more
focused. Stress has dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for
concentration. And overall my thinking is much more integrated.

It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of
advancement. Reaching new levels is something that can only be
understood internally by achieving deeper levels of meditation,
finding more effective solutions to problem solving, and experiencing
solace in one's life. Daoism has affected so many facets of my life
that the only measurement I have is that I just keep getting better
and better at my game.

rb1
 
"rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of
> experience.

The same can be said of daydreams.

> I can understand your need to quantify or measure the
> energy since this post was really about pain in the throat chakra.

I can understand your need to presume that a question must reflect a
"need".

> I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and
> bone breathing techniques, and the Western Middle Pillar exercise,
> along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises have improved
> my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more
> focused. Stress has dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for
> concentration. And overall my thinking is much more integrated.
>
> It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of
> advancement.

No, it's not. Obviously, posture and concentration and stress levels are
measurable.

Assiduous practice at sitting up straight will do wonders for your posture.
Focussing your attention on anything will improve your ability to focus
your attention. Learning to quiet and relax your body with breath control
will dissipate stress. Learning to sit properly, quiet your nerves, and
focus your attention will help integrate your thinking. This has been
demonstrated through a considerable body of solid research in stress
management.

Why would you need to posit the existence of a mysterious form of energy to
do this?
 
Tom wrote:
> "rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of
>>experience.
>
>
> The same can be said of daydreams.
>
>
>>I can understand your need to quantify or measure the
>>energy since this post was really about pain in the throat chakra.
>
>
> I can understand your need to presume that a question must reflect a
> "need".
>
>
>>I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and
>>bone breathing techniques, and the Western Middle Pillar exercise,
>>along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises have improved
>>my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more
>>focused. Stress has dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for
>>concentration. And overall my thinking is much more integrated.
>>
>>It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of
>>advancement.
>
>
> No, it's not. Obviously, posture and concentration and stress levels are
> measurable.
>
> Assiduous practice at sitting up straight will do wonders for your posture.
> Focussing your attention on anything will improve your ability to focus
> your attention. Learning to quiet and relax your body with breath control
> will dissipate stress. Learning to sit properly, quiet your nerves, and
> focus your attention will help integrate your thinking. This has been
> demonstrated through a considerable body of solid research in stress
> management.
>
> Why would you need to posit the existence of a mysterious form of energy to
> do this?
>
>

great question!

looking for a noun when really a verb is called for?

blandcriminal
 
"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > IMO understanding qi is very subjective and based on one's level of
> > experience.
>
> The same can be said of daydreams.
>
> > I can understand your need to quantify or measure the
> > energy since this post was really about pain in the throat chakra.
>
> I can understand your need to presume that a question must reflect a
> "need".
>
> > I use Zen one-pointness techniques, Chinese circular breathing and
> > bone breathing techniques, and the Western Middle Pillar exercise,
> > along with studying the chakra centers. These exercises have improved
> > my life. My posture has straightened. My concentration is more
> > focused. Stress has dissipated yet it can be the catalysis for
> > concentration. And overall my thinking is much more integrated.
> >
> > It would be extremely hard to test or measure these levels of
> > advancement.
>
> No, it's not. Obviously, posture and concentration and stress levels are
> measurable.
>
> Assiduous practice at sitting up straight will do wonders for your posture.
> Focussing your attention on anything will improve your ability to focus
> your attention. Learning to quiet and relax your body with breath control
> will dissipate stress. Learning to sit properly, quiet your nerves, and
> focus your attention will help integrate your thinking. This has been
> demonstrated through a considerable body of solid research in stress
> management.
>
> Why would you need to posit the existence of a mysterious form of energy to
> do this?

To improve my golf swing. ;)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Nadie Niemand) wrote:

> However, nowadays, the Chinese themselves use a system called Pinyin.
> In Pinyin you actually spell the word with a D. Personally, I like
> Pinyin much better. If you mean T, use T, if you mean D, use D. Much
> more to my liking! :)

Likewise 'chi' for 'qi', and 'tai chi' for 'taiji'... Much more
intuitive, IMHO, I agree with you, Garry.

Richard
 
"Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote

> Two Bears, my brother, you are correct about the pronunciation, and
> partially correct about the spelling. If you are using the Wade-Giles
> system of transcribing Chinese, then yes, you would spell it with a T.

Aloha nui loa Garry; my brother.

Every time I have heard Taoism mentioned; it is pronounced with a D; but
every time I have seen it written with a T (even the book Tao Te Ching).

Aloha nui loa; Two Bears.

Received the title 'master' 8 times; and STILL working on self mastery.
Click the link to read my HUNA intro. http://www.geocities.com/huna101
 
The entire paper for:
A Preliminary Study of the Effect of External Qigong on Lymphoma
Growth in Mice

as well as many other scientific papers on Qigong can be found at:
http://www.qigonginstitute.org/Publications.html
http://www.qigonginstitute.org/


karuna wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>
>> "Nadie Niemand" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> qi cannot be detected or measured? Interesting! Could we have the
>>> publication information or a URL please?
>>
>>
>> Do you feel that qi can be detected and measured in some way that would
>> provide acceptable evidence of its existence to the scientific community?
>
>
> Well first we'd have to train the lab rats in qi gong
> (presumably not the rats who were given dental amalgams, as that might
> interfere with the energies)
>
> Then grade them, maybe: Brown belt qi-rats; black belt qi-rats?
> Just have to find a qi gong lab rat teacher.
> Maybe the rat dentician knows one.
> "teenage mutant ninja rodents"
>
> Here's one abstract, but with a sad ending: they sacrificed the main
> characters.
> From a study by the University of Medicine and Dentistry
> of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson-Medical School,
> Newark, NJ 08854, USA.
> "A preliminary study of the effect of external qigong on lymphoma growth
> in mice."
>
> OBJECTIVE:
> To examine the effectiveness of external qigong on the in vivo growth of
> transplantable murine lymphoma cells in mice.
>
> BACKGROUND:
> Qigong is a traditional Chinese health practice that is believed by many
> to have special preventive and healing power. Underlying the system is
> the belief in the existence of a subtle energy (qi), which circulates
> throughout the body, and when strengthened or balanced, can improve
> health and ward off or slow the progress of disease.
>
> To date, much of the literature showing the effects of qi are presented
> in the non-Western literature, and as such are viewed with considerable
> skepticism.
>
> In an attempt to demonstrate qi in a controlled setting, the effect of
> external qigong emission from a qigong healer on the in vivo growth of
> transplantable murine lymphoma cells in mice was explored in two pilot
> studies.
>
> METHODS:
> In study 1, 30 SJL/J mice were injected intravenously with lymphoma
> cells that localize and exhibit aggressive growth in the lymphoid
> tissues of untreated syngeneic recipients.
>
> These tumor-injected mice were divided into 3 groups:
> (1). qigong treatment (administered by a qigong healer);
> (2). sham treatment; and
> (3). no-treatment control.
>
> The sham group received the same number of treatments from a person
> without training in qigong, who imitated the motions of the qigong
> healer. The control group received no treatment at all.
>
> In study 1, the mice were sacrificed on the 9th or 11th days after
> tumor-cell injection, and in study 2, the mice were sacrificed on the
> 10th and 13th days. Tumor growth in lymph nodes (LN) was estimated by LN
> weight expressed as a percentage of total body weight.
>
> RESULTS:
> In study 1, LNs from mice in the qigong-treated group were significantly
> smaller than LN from mice in either the control group or in the sham
> treatment group (p < 0.05), suggesting that there was less tumor growth
> in the qigong-treated mice.
>
> In study 2, using the same design as study 1, the same pattern of
> difference found in study 1 emerged: LN ratio from mice in the
> qigong-treated group was smaller than that in either the control group
> or in the sham group. However, these results did not reach statistical
> significance, partially as a result of larger variances in all groups in
> this study.
>
> CONCLUSIONS:
> These preliminary results, while still inconclusive, suggest that qigong
> treatment from one particular qigong practitioner might influence the
> growth of lymphoma cells negatively. Further studies with different
> practitioners, more repeated trials, and/or different tumor models are
> needed to further investigate the effects of external qigong on tumor
> growth in mice.
> J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Oct;8(5):615-21.
> Chen KW, Shiflett SC, Ponzio NM, He B, Elliott DK, Keller SE.
> http://tinyurl.com/fjqx
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve
> &db=PubMed&list_uids=12470443&dopt=Abstract
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back