Scientific Approach to Practice

[ChiDragon]

Oh! In that case, you were simply wrong!

 

Seriously, EMF is "electromotive force."

 

Perhaps you may be correct; but I had been working with the stuff for a living and I am glad somebody that is telling me that I am wrong.

 

Please check this out before we jump to any conclusion. Alright...???

Ref: EMF

 

Peace...

Edited June 18, 2012 by ChiDragon

[fizix]

Ah, the assumption that if it cannot be explained in science, it is not valid. Because science has already progressed to where all and everything in reality has been formulated/documented, right?

[dwai]

Perhaps you may be correct; but I had been working with the stuff for a living and I am glad somebody that is telling me that I am wrong.

 

Please check this out before we jump to any conclusion. Alright...???

Ref: EMF

 

Peace...

Er..actually both are right. Emf is electromotive force. It is also used for electromagnetic field or em field.

[ChiDragon]

Er..actually both are right. Emf is electromotive force. It is also used for electromagnetic field or em field.

 

There are tons of things that can be represented by this acronym.

 

It was not a matter of who is right or wrong. Somebody was at fault by not reading the post correctly and made an hasty assumption. Anyway, thank you for bringing this to our attention. It was really immaterial at this point now....

Edited June 19, 2012 by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Ah, the assumption that if it cannot be explained in science, it is not valid. Because science has already progressed to where all and everything in reality has been formulated/documented, right?

Right, it is only a matter of finding them and put into good utilization.

[Informer]

I would say that it is "an excellent tool" to help us model simplifications of "reality" (whatever that means) in a way that can be tested to verify whether the model seems consistent & and yields repeatable results. If the model is stable and in agreement with observations, it is often considered to be "true" or "proven" but the concientious scientist understands that subject to change.

 

Someone mentioned classical Netwonian mechanics -- an excellent example. We refer to "Newton's Laws" even though they have been proven to be "false" in that they are limited in applicability. Doesn't stop us from using them on a daily basis, though, because the model is very very good (but wrong...)

 

ChiDragon, the term "EMF" in English refers to "electromotive force" rather than "electromagnetic frequency." While "frequency" implies an oscillation, there is no need for frequency to come into play when talking about EMF. In fact, the entire field of electrostatics is devoted to zero-frequency situations...

I think that EMF is commonly referred to as Electromagnetic field because:

 

The electromagnetic force can be generated by three types of fields known as the electrostatic field, magnetostatic field, and the electromagnetic field.

http://emandpplabs.nscee.edu/cool/temporary/doors/forces/electromagforce/electromagnetic.htm

 

and

 

 

An electromagnetic field (also EMF or EM field) is a physical field produced by moving electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. It is one of the four fundamental forces of nature (the others are gravitation, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

 

and

 

EMF stands for electromagnetic fields. Radio waves are one form of EMF. So is ordinary light. Electromagnetic fields are produced by every electrical or electronic device. This includes electrical wiring and power lines, computers, televisions, wireless devices such as cell phones and WiFi devices, microwave ovens, all forms of broadcasting including AM, FM, and TV, etc. Visible light as well as invisible forms such as infrared, and ultraviolet, X-Rays, and gamma rays are also forms of EMF.

 

All these different forms of EMF are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Electromagnetic waves cover a vast frequency range from ELF Extremely low frequency of less than 1 Hz (cycles per second) up to hard gamma rays at over 300 EHz (EHz is 10 to the power 18 cycles per second)

 

http://www.emfandhealth.com/EMFExplained.html

 

When we talk about placebo effect -- this is an anticipated effect that a person encounters when they are receiving a fake treatment.

 

I mention my pharmaceutical background - because I have read hundreds of Medical Studies and know that the placebo effect can happen up to 50% of the time. Howver, this effect usually wains as time goes on -- in otherwords - placebo works 50% of the time - still working at 1 month, at 2 months only 40% feel it's still working, and by 3 months only 10% feel it's still working.

 

In the study cited above 19 of 20 participants had benefit immediately, and through the 3 months that we had for follow-up. This has been tru for all of the Medical Qigong that I have done. I see close to 100% success rate with in-person and with distance treatments. Yes - there are always a few that don't work as well as we would like - I have had about 6 or 7 out of 700 - 800 individuals that I have treated. You do the math -- less than 1%. Remember when we treat we do it - according to the "Will of God". It doesnt matter if the person expects it to work or expects it not to work -- My Medical Qigong treatments work regardless of anticipated outcome. I credit that to having an excellent teacher as well as participating in a very powerful Qigong system - Stillness-Movement.

 

If there was any truth to this it would have been wrote up in a paper for peer-review and then been replicated. Why wouldn't you want to show the world that it's not placebo or belief? That is the Idea of science, to provide logical rationale and understanding of phenomena we can observe. If we can't observe it science doesn't care about it.

 

That's the Idea behind science; weed out the snake oil salesmen. You can say whatever story you want to, as can I, but without any real evidence I am only left with the option to "believe" you or not. Which I don't.

 

The way I see it is that I don't have anything to lose so wouldn't have the bias of one who makes money selling the snake oil. Of course he says it works! That's why we have peer review and independent lab results so that the experiments which do have merit can be replicated. Then we have reason to believe the proposition is true, until then I assume it is incorrect or incomplete. Who cares if it only worked once, it provides little evidence in comparison to the many times it didn't work.

 

 

The Earth's magnetic field is similar to that of a bar magnet tilted 11 degrees from the spin axis of the Earth. The problem with that picture is that the Curie temperature of iron is about 770 C . The Earth's core is hotter than that and therefore not magnetic. So how did the Earth get its magnetic field?

 

Magnetic fields surround electric currents, so we surmise that circulating electic currents in the Earth's molten metalic core are the origin of the magnetic field. A current loop gives a field similar to that of the earth.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html

 

Since surmise has to be utilized, let's look at what surmise means:

 

"Verb:

Suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it: "he surmised that something must be wrong".

Noun:

A supposition that something may be true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it: "all these observations remain surmise".

 

www.google.com"

 

This implicates that the premise is not known to be true from any certain evidence, and therefore incomplete but seemingly most likely. Really it leaves us open to a wide range of possibilities. I have a supposition in this regards which is that all mass is subject to shrinking from the weight of its mass. Waves are not subject to shrinkage, only particles of a wave become subject to shrinkage of the mass.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Informer

[unmike]

In regards to the Earth's magnetic field, consider the (much) larger picture. This planet rests in a near, but not total vacuum, the likes of which is populated by an incredibly thin, but still present, fluid, which is comprised mainly of electrons and positive ions streaming our way from the sun and other stars. This plasma, being charged and moving ionic matter, gives rise to fields. The mass of stuff we call home is a likewise charged body, whose field is determined both by its constituent matter but also its charged environment. Molten core or no, the Sun is an oft overlooked component of our field. For further insight, please refer to the Electric Sun/Cosmos hypothesis, which does a great deal to illuminate the situation.

[Informer]

That is the beauty of cosmology, so little evidence beyond observation and correlation.

 

We are all within the magnetic field, entangled atoms.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Informer

[unmike]

That is the beauty of cosmology, so little evidence beyond observation and correlation.

 

The bigger picture is that we are all within the magnetic field, entangled atoms.

 

Observation and correlation are hallmarks of science, stretching at least as far back as those ancient Chinese hermits experimenting within the crucibles of their own flesh and blood. As above, so below.

 

Indeed, the electric sky notion is an intriguing one, for no reason other than it manages to Occam's razor away such ungrounded (ha!) notions of Dark Matter or quantum weirdness in favor of rectification to classical electrical fields via the plasmic fluid that spans the stars. Galaxies' outer stars should not be keeping up with the inner ones in rotation assuming gravity's effects are not augmented by some mysterious extra and invisible matter, yet they do, and people posit all kinds of notions to explain such away. Happily, though, plasma physicists are beginning to encroach into unenlightened astronomy territory, showing that well understood forces not only easily account for these kinds of shapes and actions, but they also hold tremendous predictive value. It is this last point which elevates good science above simple observation and correlation.

[Informer]

I was taught public understanding is a good premise.

 

The main problem is that we can't fathom or really recreate of model of space in a lab to get more conclusive and substantial evidence. I know such things are attempted such as the recreation of the big bang, but it seems like CERN has not found any evidence of a such a particle as of yet.

 

The supposition of shrinkage is intended to use gravity as an independent line of evidence from the big BANG. The rest of the evidence for the big bang also seems to point to shrinkage as a possible phenomena for an apparently infinitely and ever increasing amount of space, and explained as expansion.

 

Expansion is dependent upon perspective. In general relativity it is explained that the observer does not in fact observe the reality of the situation. So to consider an alternative perspective to infinite expansion that must include space to be continually expanding I propose that all matter is shrinking at the same minimal and constant rate combined with it's mass to induce the phenomena of gravity. Then everything would then be shrinking within a fixed amount of space.

 

This is similar in manner as to a hard drive. Hard drives have a fixed amount of space, to get more room data is shrunk. We are that data.

 

I think another line from the Big Bang that would also apply to shrinkage is in explaining the evidence of increasing distance from the cosmic background radiation.

 

Dark matter is apparently the cushion between matter and anti-matter, in that there must exist something extremely large to keep matter and anti-matter apart and from annihilating one another. I look at it as the wall of the black hole we are shrinking within. Yet we are still being entangle with anti-matter as such pure matter collision producing anti-matter.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Informer

[Brian]

No offense intended, ChiDragon! That was why I used the smiley-face. I wasn't trying to start a nomenclature war or derail the thread -- I was just trying to encourage conventional usage for the purposes of clarity. As you pointed out:

 

There are tons of things that can be represented by this acronym.

 

The use of the term emf (or, less frequently, EMF) for "electromotive force" predates the concept of the electromagnetic field or the discovery of the electron. There are some, primarily in fields of engineering, who will use EMF to denote "electromagnetic field" but that is usually either used carefully (such as by specifying that something other than "electromagnetic force" is meant) or used with a focused audience in order to avoid confusion & ambiguity.

 

You referred to "EM field" and "EM frequency" and then, when you used the term EMF for the first time you did clearly specify that you meant "electromagnetic field" rather than "electromotive force," and I owe you an apology!

 

I've got to take exception, though with this statement:

 

1 and 2. That was what I had been doing all the time.

 

3. Yes, I can explain Chi Kung in better terms but, first, we must clear all the fallacies in the air.

 

There is no electromagnetic field(EMF) in the body, it is all chemical reactions. The human body is not a coil because only a coil can produce an EMF due to a change in electrical current such as an alternating current(AC). A direct current(DC) will not produce an EMF in a coil. Beside, the body cells only generate chemical-electrical pulses.

 

A charge at rest is said to generate an electric field or electrostatic field, which is just a simplified electromagnetic field in which the magnetic component is zeroed-out. Once the charge begins to move in relation to an observer (or the observer in relation to the charge), a magnetic field is generated orthogonal to the electric field. The combination of these two components (the electric field from the charge itself and the magnetic field from the relative motion of the charge) are the electromagnetic field or electrodynamic field. There is no requirement that the charge oscillate nor is there a need for any sort of coil-like structure. (We'll avoid complications like QED or Minkowski's application of the Lagrangian to solve Maxwell's equations within the context of special relativity as they really change nothing here...)

 

That said, it is important to note that there are trillions of moving charges within the human body. Even if you choose for some reason to exclude the electrons associated with every atom in every molecule in every cell (and the mind-bogglingly complex electromagnetic field this creates), the body relies heavily on the electromagnetic fields generated by the flow within ion channels. This is "chemical" but chemistry is hugely electromagnetic. Look at the ear, for instance -- the K+ flow within the inner hair cells in the organ of Corti is a part of the process by which the mechanical energy of moving air is converted to nerve impulses. These moving potassium ions develop interacting electromagnetic fields. There are LOTS of other examples of moving charges within the body.

[joeblast]

I almost asked earlier how anyone really would really be able to concretely define something to be perfectly at rest like that

[ChiDragon]

No offense intended, ChiDragon! That was why I used the smiley-face. I wasn't trying to start a nomenclature war or derail the thread -- I was just trying to encourage conventional usage for the purposes of clarity. As you pointed out:

 

You referred to "EM field" and "EM frequency" and then, when you used the term EMF for the first time you did clearly specify that you meant "electromagnetic field" rather than "electromotive force," and I owe you an apology!

 

I've got to take exception, though with this statement:

 

A charge at rest is said to generate an electric field or electrostatic field, which is just a simplified electromagnetic field in which the magnetic component is zeroed-out. Once the charge begins to move in relation to an observer (or the observer in relation to the charge), a magnetic field is generated orthogonal to the electric field. The combination of these two components (the electric field from the charge itself and the magnetic field from the relative motion of the charge) are the electromagnetic field or electrodynamic field. There is no requirement that the charge oscillate nor is there a need for any sort of coil-like structure. (We'll avoid complications like QED or Minkowski's application of the Lagrangian to solve Maxwell's equations within the context of special relativity as they really change nothing here...)

 

That said, it is important to note that there are trillions of moving charges within the human body. Even if you choose for some reason to exclude the electrons associated with every atom in every molecule in every cell (and the mind-bogglingly complex electromagnetic field this creates), the body relies heavily on the electromagnetic fields generated by the flow within ion channels. This is "chemical" but chemistry is hugely electromagnetic. Look at the ear, for instance -- the K+ flow within the inner hair cells in the organ of Corti is a part of the process by which the mechanical energy of moving air is converted to nerve impulses. These moving potassium ions develop interacting electromagnetic fields. There are LOTS of other examples of moving charges within the body.

A Seeker...

No problem! Apology accepted....

 

Thank for your explanation in your own words. I will not going to fanatically accept nor deny it for now. However, we should have the matter cleared in the near future. BTW My argument was based on the following without going into the quantum physics aspect of it:

 

Apparantly the bodies electromagnetic field stores metabolic energy in cells, triggers internal changes... enhances the efficiency of the nervous system.... what else?

 

People do use the term "electromagnetic field" quite loosely. What do you think about the statement above....??? What do you think the magnitude of the bodies electromagnetic field is...???

Edited June 19, 2012 by ChiDragon

[Brian]

A Seeker...

No problem! Apology accepted.

 

Thank for your explanation in your own words. I will not going to fanatically accept nor deny it for now. However, we should have the matter cleared in the near future. BTW My argument was based on the following without going into the quantum physics aspect of it:

 

 

 

People do use the term "electromagnetic field" quite loosely. What do you think about the statement above....??? What do you think the magnitude of the bodies electromagnetic field is...???

 

When you look at any collection of atoms (and, personally, I only turn to relativity or quantum mechanics when conventional models start to fail due to conditions like extremely small scale or high energy/velocity, etc.; therefore, while I know that the model of a molecule composed of atoms in which particles called electrons orbit a nucleus composed of other particles called protons & neutrons (each of which is composed of smaller particles) is fundamentally flawed, it is convenient and "right enough" for now...) the electromagnetic potentials of the collection represent only the tiniest fraction of the "potential potential" (if you follow me) -- we see this in many other aspects of reality, too (from low brain "utilization" to the balance of "normal" matter/energy to "dark" matter/energy). Another example that comes to mind is the permenant magnet -- by aligning the orientation of a tiny fraction of the atoms within the crystaline structure of a bar of iron, a powerful force-generator is created. Those eddies of current exist in every material...

 

We currently understand only three discrete forces -- gravity, strong nuclear and electroweak (where the electroweak interaction is the combination of the electromagnetic & weak nuclear interactions). We have sort of worked out the math to show the decoupling of those forces (and the accompanying "carrier particles") in the moments following the creation of the universe (or this iteration of the universe or this slice of the multiverse or whatever the heck it is or you want to call it). So far, we have only been able to demonstrate one of those integrations (hence the Noble prize awarded for the electroweak interaction...) Most people other than quantum wrench-turners, though, still refer to the electroweak interaction as two independent forces/interactions/particles.

 

As such, every phenomenon we understand or think we understand is tied to one or more of those forces or interactions. Gravity is extraordinarily weak except when masses are enormous and the two nuclear forces drop in strength so quickly that they rarely come into play beyond the confines of the atomic nucleus (at a distance of a dozen femtometers or so). Pretty much anything else is electromagnetic.

 

Find ways to increase efficiency in coupling or utilizing electromagnetic energy and you are quite literally tapping into untapped potentials.

[ChiDragon]

A Seeker...

I was used to the terms of action potential, ATP, nerve pulses. Now, I've realized that they are related to and known as Bio-electromagnetic field or energy.

 

Look what I've found. Let's look into this and have some fun with it. I haven't read it yet but it would be very interesting.

 

Qi and BEM Energy

[Kempomaster]

Iam adding a reply to the suggestion that I might be "snake oil salesman" - of course you never know that might have a beneficial effect for some purpose -- Yes it does - anti-venim- perhaps you should have been injected with some to reduce the venom in your words.

 

So - a Scientific Study is not a study - unless it is in a Peer reviewed journal and then has been replicated. In terms of new drug approvals that ius true - the Medicine generally need to have gone through various phases of study and been able to replicate the results. At which point the material is submitted to the FDA which usually send the application back with instructions on areas of further concern....etc..etc..etc

 

Now in the case of the Scientific study that I was referring to - if you took the time to read all of the posts - which it doesn't appear that you did. I pointed out that the study was a paper for a Graduate Level - State University Class. Having wotrked in the Pharmaceutical World for almost 24 yrs I know a fair amount about the design, parameters, statistical analysis, limitations, etc of a "Study". I have also spent a great deal of time with many Physicians/Professors that have designed hundreds of Scientific Studies and yes most of them were published in various Scientic Journals - all peer reviewed, all top of the medical/scientific world -- so I am very familiar with what is a proper Scientific Study and what is not.

 

As I pointed out in my original post - I posted the info to show that in fact a study has been done in which - we had two groups properly divided - each treated by a Medical Qigong practitioner - each group having beliefs that either this type of treatment would work or they firmly believed that the treatment would not work. There was a well accepted Stanbdard Pain scale used - which Medical Doctors use daily - whereby a patient self-rates their pain 1 no pain to 10 extreme pain. Each patient completed a belief survey and pain survey prior to and post treatment.

 

The results were undeniable in that the Medical Qigong Treatments worked regardless of belief in therapy and the results were highly statistically significant using a 95% confidence interval. These resu;lts and the paper were presented to the University Professor and received an excellent score.

 

I have also stated the limitations of such a small scale study - 20 people - limited to the course of a semester and suggested that with SOMEONE willing to pay for a large scale study - University or otherwise - that I would donate my time to help prove the effectiveness of Medical Qigong and Taoist Neuro-energetic Medicine. This Qigong simply works - my own observational studies - (look it up - these are done all the time) has shown that the techniques I use have an effectiveness rate of 98% or better. The 2% that don't seem to hit the "healed mark" are those that are generally lost to follow-up (look that up also - as most large studies generally have 5 - 10% lost to follow-up or patients don't follow the guidelines for treatment -ie- they take other meds, don't come back for additional meds or treatment) The cases that I refer to are not a mere handful - 20 or 30 cases - the number is well over 800 cases and I see 98% or better success rate.

 

Last night I had an approx 40 yr old female patient with assorted pain complaints - consistent with fibromyalgia. She rated her pain prior to treatment at a 9 on a scale of 1 no pain to 10 extreme pain. The treatment took me approx 1 1/2 hours to complete. I utilized the Taoist Neuroenergetic Medicine treatment and upon completion the patient was completely amazed and rated her paion at a 2 - in otherwords almost no pain at all and that was after one treatment. Now - yes- I will have to do follow-up to see whether the patients pain scale remains at a 2 - yet - I did recommend additional treatments and this is where the patient has some responsibility.

 

Today - I treated an approx 45 yr old Male - Medical Doctor - that called me and asked me to help him with extreme pain in his mid-back and neck and stiffness unable to move his neck. Again, the treatment I used was Taoist Medicine - combined with Medical Qigong/Off-Body Qi projection. The treatment lasted 1 hour. The patient (A MEDICAL DOCTOR) rated his pain as completely resolved and his range of motion for his neck - as "Back to Normal".

 

These are results that I have come to expect with the Energetic Treatments that I use - the Treatments were taught to me by - Michael Lomax, he was taught Medical Qigong by MASTER Wang Juemin and the Taoist Medicine br Dr. Vincent Graef. If you would like to know more about the amazing Lineage of Healing - I would be happy to post the other Masters names from the Lineage.

 

This stuff works in amazing fashion. There is nothing wrong with questioning whether it works or suggesting scientific studies to validate. But if you want to sit back and criticize and you have never really taken the time to attend a valid seminar or more fully investigate the truth then you are just spewing hogwash because you like the way your words look in print.

 

To design and complete a study takes money - Doctors that have come up with great off-label uses for med's are not the ones that are charged with doing a study. Typically - Large Companies will - perhaps Insurance or Managed Care Companies that see the benefit of treatment and overall reduced cost of treatment for patients by utilizing Medical Qigong or Large Hospitals or Institutions.

 

As I stated previously - I would be happy to donate my time to treat the patients and prove that these treatments are in fact phenominal and could be a big part of Medicine of the Future.

 

So when you get the study organized - please call me!

 

Thanks,

 

Brion aka Kempomaster

[Informer]

I don't think you are a snake-oil salesman. Science is used to weed them out . . .

 

Have you considered trying this on mice to get results not dependent upon subjective interpretations such as pain scales etc. . ? Mice can be controlled much easier than people imo.

 

I don't see the paper that recorded the results anywhere in the thread. If you did post it please tell me where.

 

I'm wondering if you took into account the body's ability to heal over time of its own accord?

 

Or the possibility that the body is healing itself through suggestion and awareness of the ailment?

 

I wouldn't set the auxilary hypothesis to transference of chi so soon. It reveals a possible bias. These connotations would send many, more skeptical then me, running without giving the paper a chance imo.

 

Something more simplistic and without connotations would be the mice being handled as an independent variable. Then the control group are the ones not ever handled.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[Kempomaster]

I have indeed worked on a number of animals -- mostly dogs and horses. One case in particular involved a horse that was owned by a doctor of Veterinary Medicine. She had tried many approaches to help heal one of her horses that had developed a physical issue - The approaches she tried included the service of an Equine Vet, an acupuncturist, and a chiropractor. None of the previous attempts had helped the horse. After 1 Taoist Treatment - the horse (which had an S.I. misalignment - causing it to drag his right rear leg) no longer dragged the leg. After 3 treatments the Vet/Owner pronounced the alignment as back to normal, walk and or gate - back to normal, and the horse had stopped ":cribbing" eating wood to sooth pain. The Vet then gave me a letter of recommendation for anyone wanting treatment for their animal. Another local Doctor of Veterinary Medicine has called me and had me come into the office to work on injured dogs --- One in particular had a severe spinal injury - the dog screamed non-stop when it came in and was going to be put to sleep - I treated the dog w/Taoist Treatment 3 successive days and the dog went home the next day - normal no problems - no residual problems as confirmed by the Vet and the dogs owner.

 

These are just a few examples of animals that I have treated -- one would assume that we don't get a placebo effect with animals - either it works or it doesn't. In the above cases - it wasn't the body's ability to heal itself as the results were almost instant - the treatment(s) were given when other modalities had failed.

 

I have not scanned the study in question onto this thread as it is over 25 pages and length and I don't see the purpose of posting the entire study - I may do that in the future.

 

My purpose with case reportsd and letting readers know about the study is to introduce others to the world of Medical Qigong and the various ailments that can be successfully treated with Medical Qigong and Taoist Medicine. This stuff works - over and over and over. In humans and in animals. Animals are very rewarding to treat as they have different ways of showing their appreciation. The horse above - Killion - would wrap is neck around me and push me back to work on him more. He reacted just as humans do to Taoist Treatment - yawn big times - over and over, sway back and forth, and stomp his feet as the "Sick Qi" was expelled from his body. When I went to visit him on a follow-up after the 3rd treatment -- he galloped across the pasture to see me. His owner/Vet - confirmed he hadn't galloped for over 2 years - but the Taoist Treatment made the difference.

 

Thanks,

 

Brion aka Kempomaster

[Informer]

Well to run the experiment find an ailment you can always heal and subject the mice to that ailment, then divide them up.

 

I think it would be pretty easy to get this evidence accepted accepted by the scientific community if you did get results, yet don't necessarily put it as a line for the transference of chi yet, that would be a hypothesis that require much more evidence than just healing the mice.

 

So then you find another ailment you can always heal and run it again, then you are accumulating real evidence.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

I don't think you are a snake-oil salesman. Science is used to weed them out . . .

 

Have you considered trying this on mice to get results not dependent upon subjective interpretations such as pain scales etc. . ? Mice can be controlled much easier than people imo.

 

I don't see the paper that recorded the results anywhere in the thread. If you did post it please tell me where.

 

I'm wondering if you took into account the body's ability to heal over time of its own accord?

 

There have been numerous examples of animal treatments given by Kempomaster and Ya Mu. If you have a look through their previous posts you should be able to find them. These were dogs and horses primarily from what I can recall.

 

FYI, there have been experiments done in China using animals, under the supervision of academics there. I think Ya Mu has referenced a database of information on another website.

 

My own approach to qigong and healing has been to go and find out for myself, rather than relying on what anyone else has to say, or to make excuses as to why I am unable, or unwilling, to. It has involved many years, a lot of money and thousands of hours of personal practice. The opinions of those who also do this I respect. Opinions have value from the weight of experience behind them, not from speculation based on what someone has read.

[mjjbecker]

I think it would be pretty easy to get this evidence accepted accepted by the scientific community...

 

What actual experience do you have of the scientific community? What research experience do you have? What medical or healing practice experience do you have?

 

Do you have any science-based qualifications? Do you have any medical/healing based qualifications?

 

You comments merely look like opinion based on what you've read. If you have any actual experience of these matters, please do share.

[Informer]

It's nothing more then common knowledge of scientific process.

 

I'm not here trying to sell anything sir, It's free info do what u want with it.

 

If you must know, do independent/honors research where I attend school, and this stuff is basic and fundamental. The college Dean and the Doctor instructing me thinks it's O.K. for me to use their stuff to teach myself . . . I face a great deal skepticism intentionally so that I can refine the process and work . . .

 

To run the experiment I would suggest that the hypothesis of the experiment to be that both the control group and the independent group to be hypothesized to be without change, to help with confirmation bias.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[mjjbecker]

It's nothing more then common knowledge of scientific process.

 

No such thing. It is assumption. I have had similar misconceptions myself in the past, which were corrected by a friend who had worked as a researcher in the biology department of a university. He also has extensive medical experience, as an osteopath, and has attended numerous medical lectures by scientific experts in their fields. Direct, personal experience, in matters of research, practice and education.

 

So I ask again, do you have any actual experience of medicine, science or health care?

 

 

I'm not here trying to sell anything sir, It's free info do what u want with it.

 

No, its opinion. The value of opinion doesn't come simply from reading about stuff. It comes from direct experience. There is good reason why experts in their fields get really pissed off when amateurs express opinions without ever having spent the time to learn and master something.

 

 

If you must know, do independent/honors research where I attend school, and this stuff is basic and fundamental. The college Dean and the Doctor instructing me thinks it's O.K. for me to use their stuff to teach myself . . . I face a great deal skepticism intentionally so that I can refine the process and work . . .

 

At what level are you studying? Under graduate? Post graduate? Doctorate? And, given it is relevent to the subject at hand, what are you studying?

 

 

To run the experiment I would suggest that the hypothesis of the experiment to be that both the control group and the independent group to be hypothesized to be without change, to help with confirmation bias.

 

I would suggest you learn how to do, and gain experience of, such things, before you attempt to advise others on how to do them.

Edited June 20, 2012 by mjjbecker

[Informer]

Ok guy, what is wrong that I said exactly? Where is the evidence? If what i said is wrong it should be easy enough to disprove. All you are doing is making accusation without any basis.

 

You quoted the same thing 4 different times, for what purpose? Divide up your ranting?

 

I am undergrad studying grad content. The doctor is a graduate of graduate school, so I think he knows what he is talking about and teaching me. He can submit my papers under his name if my research reveals anything profound. So he teaches me how it works, acting as the peer-review, the 1st filter.

 

What I am and have been studying in school is microcomputers, networking and security, business, entrepreneurship, biology, microbiology, and mycology which I'm doing independently.

 

I am also studying Philosophy, Theology, and alternative energies in my free time, which includes: electrolysis, solar power, wind power, sustainable agriculture, amongst other things. You guys are big help in theology area, but not so much science

 

I have kept a G.P.A over 3.5 throughout my education. History is my weakest area and I have a fairly bad memory, yet I know how to use the third eye, realized metta, and regularly practice MCO, non of which I was personally instructed in. Anything else u want to know?

Edited June 20, 2012 by Informer

[Ya Mu]

There have been numerous examples of animal treatments given by Kempomaster and Ya Mu. If you have a look through their previous posts you should be able to find them. These were dogs and horses primarily from what I can recall.

 

FYI, there have been experiments done in China using animals, under the supervision of academics there. I think Ya Mu has referenced a database of information on another website.

 

My own approach to qigong and healing has been to go and find out for myself, rather than relying on what anyone else has to say, or to make excuses as to why I am unable, or unwilling, to. It has involved many years, a lot of money and thousands of hours of personal practice. The opinions of those who also do this I respect. Opinions have value from the weight of experience behind them, not from speculation based on what someone has read.

For anyone interested in this see theStillness-Movement & Taoist Medicine thread for case history reports of animal and human healings.

 

"My own approach to qigong and healing has been to go and find out for myself, rather than relying on what anyone else has to say, or to make excuses as to why I am unable, or unwilling, to. It has involved many years, a lot of money and thousands of hours of personal practice. The opinions of those who also do this I respect. Opinions have value from the weight of experience behind them, not from speculation based on what someone has read."

Now this sounds like really good advice. In fact none who hasn't taken such advice actually knows anything about the subject and is expressing opinions with no basis.

 

Personally I would venture that history of use is much more valuable as well as valid, than any type of "scientific study". I submit as evidence of this the thousands (millions?) of people who were maimed, killed, treated with no efficacy and health destroyed by drugs that passed peer reviewed double blind studies and FDA approval; HISTORY OF USE found these same drugs to have no efficacy and contribute the above mentioned problems.

 

Whereas Medical Qigong has LONG TERM history of use. Yes, there are different ways of performing medical qigong and I can only speak of what we practice, but I know of no other modalities that get close to 100% results. Kempomaster mentioned over 800 case histories. I have thousands from many years of practice. The HOSPITAL where I studied had these same results with many more thousands of patients. The hospital that this hospital was modeled after had many more thousands. Virtually ALL of my students operating clinics have these same results. These arguments by those who have no clue, who are indeed ignorant about the subject, are not valid arguments. And it does seem every single time the "scientific study" is mentioned we practitioners get criticized for not bringing scientific studies to the table. Well, if ANYONE wants to see this done, put your money where your mouth is. FUND THE STUDY! We have already said we would do our part for free.