Please do not take this as another mock, but when are you planning to play tennis with Onishi? (not sure about the spelling)

I think it's really worth the effort inspite of what you consider flaws in his experiments. Reading a book or watching a movie and meeting the author or actor in person can be very different, as it can go either way.

Ed, there is something in this chi thing (the problem is not chi/ki itself, but like most things coming out of the "mystic" east biased perceptions of it, mostly from people who have not actually done any training to acquire awareness and control of it) I am not referring to anyone in particular, as even an opinion from a serious trainee on this subject is only as good as the level of competency achieved at the time the opinion is expressed.

Winning or losing an argument (or showing that an experiment is flawed in one aspect of it) has, in the final analysis, no bearing on chi/ki's existence or otherwise. It exist or not exist all on it's own. And of course we have problems with words here. If the chinese had from the very beginning started calling it "bio-electromagnetic radiation" then it would be seen in a different light (pun not intended)

Onishi's ready acceptance of non-adherence to a strict application of a standard baseline (which by itself may not be fatal to the general conclusions drawn from the experiment, only that you opined a possibility) is positive testimony of academic integrity. I don't believe he is a witch-doctor, magician, voodoo faith healer, pimple-faced cyber-warrior, etc. He may actually turned out to be a serious scientist who happens to have an interest and training in Ki development, which is good actually as these people are quite rare in academic/research circles, and should not be summarily held against him.

He should be given the benefit of the doubt and the fact that he pushed the "ki-is-good-for-your-health" line should not detract us too much from the general experimental conclusions drawn or the man. As I said right from the beginning, these are just baby steps, much like in the early 1900s when theories of quantum physics rattled the Einstienian establishment.

dude, you're a day late an a buck short...we stopped arguing
......for now

Quote:

---

if a person has 'no doubt' then that means they base that on evidence. if there is no evidence, then it falls firmly in the realm of belief.

---

It's interesting that you always discount anything that offers proof, such as the study cited and return to your "beliefs" argument. I said I believed that cancer cells were affected by chi... not that it cured it or any other claim... incidently, that's the finding of the study cited.

Quote:

---

this thread's study is the only known study I know of that even conducted such a test. and the study is cut to ribbons in flaw.

---

Again, you make assumptions that have no basis in fact... Oh, I get it... only studies YOU find "worthy" are believeable... I get it. We'll send anything being examined or discussed through you to find out if its findings "meet with your approval" before showing it here.

Quote:

---

That indicates to me, our argument is flawed since you are defending a personal belief and I'm pointing out apparent fact.

---

Okay... where's the study that shows that? You need to meet the same criteria that you make everybody else live up to, so where's the study showing that chi DOESN'T affect cancer cells?

I hit my head on a board about two weeks ago and have a gash on top of my skull... and anyone can understand that a severe blow to the head can kill you... so why ain't I dead?
Oh... you mean there are "degrees" of something being affected... silly me... I was taking the approach that I had outlived science since everything with you is 100 percent or nothing... I never realized that something could be affected without actually being "cured"...

You're right about one thing, Ed... the argument is dead... but you have a way about you that gets so tiresome that nobody wants to continue discussing things with you.

WT hit the ignore button man, it's a wonderful invention! Saves you wasting you're Chi!

I mean the arguement is dead because it's obviously an emotional topic for you and others here. I'm not a therapist and didn't participate in this thread to provide therapy, just debate.

Gavin's advice is the best for you...and too bad you couldn't put whole threads on ignore.

BP comments are neither here nor there and not worth addressing. you don't need to be buddies and get to know the person making a privatly-funded study public in order to debate it's method/findings. The guy might also be a war hero, respected church leader or a person on Prozac ...does that change whats in the study or his obvious connection to promotion of a product?

I just read a study that shows spending time with a pet for 10 minutes a day reduces stress with a success rate that comparitively blows accupuncture out of the water. oh and spending time with a pet is about $150 per hour less expensive.

I'd recommend to the people here to get a pet. better therepy for you than participating in these threads, thats for sure. forget the ignore button - unplug your computer and a take a walk with your dog. That way too, I wouldn't have to keep receiving e-mails from people here appologizing to me and explaining their physical/mental problems. I'm not a therapist.

Well, Ed, I'm glad you're not a therapist... you'd starve.

Just as a footnote, there was a trailer on the news this morning that the American Cancer Center reported that cancer deaths went up by 5,000 in 2005... not down as had been the trend. Sounds like you need to get back to the lab...

Not quite accurate, Grady. Some cancer rates are up, while others are declining:

http://progressreport.cancer.gov/highlights.asp

also, how many of those thousands were for reasons of discontinued health care coverage? A problem separate from science, and more to do with political leadership (or lack thereof).

The recent university shooting was from a student off his meds after his coverage expired. so from that, will you say that science makes people go on shooting sprees? because thats sortof the level of logic you are using.

I take no responsibility for what runs on the news...

Quote:

---

there was a trailer on the news this morning that the American Cancer Center reported that cancer deaths went up by 5,000 in 2005... not down as had been the trend.

---

I was merely stating what ran on the news trailer...