throat chakra hot spot

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by David Dalton, Nov 1, 2003.

  1. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "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?
     


  2. Bronsing

    Bronsing Guest

    Nadie Niemand <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    >
    > 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?

    Actually, Garry, if you want to shame someone because he/she is talking about things he/she doesn't
    know anything about, don't go on and do it yourself. Read up on musicology and physical properties
    of music as opposed to noise. And read up on some remarkable findings concerning fractal noises and
    how they are percieved. The answers to all of your questions above, and those concerning paintings
    is 'yes', albeit with some difficulty.

    --

    Robert Bronsing

    Can't you see? It all makes perfect sense, expressed in dollars and cents, pounds,
    shillings and pence

    (R. Waters)
     
  3. Suzee

    Suzee Guest

    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
     
  4. --

    "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?
    >
    > If you have not, then please refrain from making unscientific proclamations in the name of
    > science. You are held to the same standards as others if you wish to do science.
    >
    > Garry
    >

    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?

    --Rich
     
  5. 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
     
  6. J. O'Brien

    J. O'Brien Guest

    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?
     
  7. 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
     
  8. Karuna

    Karuna Guest

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

    Well, things aren't as bad as they seem. Have you read _The Body Electric_ by Robert O. Becker, M.D.
    and Gary Seldon, or _Energy Medicine, The Scientific Basis_ by James L. Oschman, or _Spiritual
    Healing_ by Daniel J. Benor, M.D.? (all available on Amazon) Lots of scientific studies and
    suggestions for mechanisms to explain observations, so science is maybe just beginning to catch on
    that there is something to be investigated here. 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.

    There are a group of us Reiki practitioners waiting to get the go ahead for a research study, but it
    will probably not be until the fall, assuming, in the meantime, that the guy that wants to do it can
    convince his superiors at the hospital that the experiment is worth doing. One more teensy, tiny
    step for science.

    Garry
     
  10. 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
     
  11. 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
     
  12. 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
     
  13. Two_bears

    Two_bears Guest

    "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
     
  14. On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:46:25 -0500, "Two_Bears" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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).

    Great! Now your horizons have been broadened. Maybe you should get out more. <g> Just kidding!

    namaste,

    Garry
     
  15. Qigong4u

    Qigong4u Guest

    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
     
  16. Rb1_622

    Rb1_622 Guest

    "Two_Bears" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "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

    A Google search for "Daoism" will yield plenty of websites.

    >(even the book Tao Te Ching).

    Also published as the "Dao De Jing." Try an Amazon.com search.

    The new spelling is fairly recent – about the time "chi" (called "ki" in Japanese) became "qi." Both
    spelling forms are correct. Just like Peking became Beijing.

    Aloha, rb1

    >
    > 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
     
  17. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Two_Bears <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"rb1_622" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    >> 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
    >
    >Taoism is spelled with a T; but pronounced as a D.
    >
    >Taoism is probably the world's oldest (recorded) monotheistic religion.

    Calling Taoism a monotheistic religion is a serious misnomer.

    >Taoism is more than 5000 years old.

    Bah. Tao Te Ching in its current form is probably about 2500 years old. The early Taoists did exist,
    and *might* go back 5000 years, but the "Lao Tzu" form of Taoism is much more recent than that.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  18. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Two_Bears <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    >> Calling Taoism a monotheistic religion is a serious misnomer.
    >
    >No it isn't. Taoism is one of the many spiritual traditions I explored.

    How nice for you. If you think it's any sort of monotheistic religion in the sense of Christianity,
    Judaism, or Islam, you are sadly mistaken.

    >Taoism recognizes the one (the Tao)

    Yes -- which is not the same as God in the sense of the religions I mention above.

    >> Bah. Tao Te Ching in its current form is probably about 2500 years old. The early Taoists did
    >> exist, and *might* go back 5000 years, but the "Lao Tzu" form of Taoism is much more recent
    >> than that.
    >
    >I never said that Taoism as expressed in the Tao Te Ching was 5000 years old. I said Taoism was
    >more than 5000 years old. Over the millennia; theere have been MANY Taoist traditions practised.
    >some dealt with magick, others like Inner alchemy Taoism were seeking immortality, etc. They were
    >all forms of of Taoism.

    But until you add Lao Tzu, you're not talking about anything like current practices. Shucks, you can
    go all the way back to shamanism if you like, but sooner or later you have to admit that there's a
    pretty serious disconnect between what you wind up with and what exists today.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  19. Two_bears

    Two_bears Guest

    "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote

    > Calling Taoism a monotheistic religion is a serious misnomer.

    No it isn't. Taoism is one of the many spiritual traditions I explored.

    Taoism recognizes the one (the Tao)

    > Bah. Tao Te Ching in its current form is probably about 2500 years old. The early Taoists did
    > exist, and *might* go back 5000 years, but the "Lao Tzu" form of Taoism is much more recent
    > than that.

    I never said that Taoism as expressed in the Tao Te Ching was 5000 years old. I said Taoism was more
    than 5000 years old. Over the millennia; theere have been MANY Taoist traditions practised. some
    dealt with magick, others like Inner alchemy Taoism were seeking immortality, etc. They were all
    forms of of Taoism.
     
  20. Tom

    Tom Guest

    "Two_Bears" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > > Calling Taoism a monotheistic religion is a serious misnomer.
    >
    > No it isn't. Taoism is one of the many spiritual traditions I explored.
    >
    > Taoism recognizes the one (the Tao)

    Tao is not a god. Monotheism asserts the existence of one god.
     
Loading...