Re: Use the Force, Luke!

[Guest guest]

Sorry, Confucian rather than Confusion.

Perhaps both Freudian and self-referential.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I never had any spiritual feeling about either qi, qi gong or yin and yang. As

far as I was concerned qi was energy, qi gong was a controlled exercise and yin

and yang are positive and negative.

 

I'm sorry your friend's sister died, but unfortunately many people die while

using allopathic

medicne too.  I'm not a staunch advocate of either. In my book, whatever works

is what I

will try. When it doesn't work or hurts, I stop. I just stopped red yeast rice

because after 3 weeks I was getting muscle pains all over. I dropped it down to

1/2 the dose, which was only one half the dose in the first place because that

is how the doctor gave it to me. So then I was taking 1/4 of the dose for a

week, but even that ended up in muscle pain. So I'm off it now and have an

appointment with the doctor in a little while today. By the way, they tried

statins on me about 12 years ago and the same thing happened.

 

Roni

From: " gumboyaya@... " <gumboyaya@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:22 AM

Subject: " Use the Force, Luke! "

Roni,

You wrote:

> Qi is the energy. Qi Gong is the exercise, which is supposed to be good for

the heart among other things.

Sort of.  Qi or Chi originally meant " breath. " As you explained to , it has

come to mean a vital force, something similar to prana or mana (in Hawaii). 

Gong is something on the order of " result " or " achievement. " Together the

implication is something like energy control or vital energy effect.

We owe the government of the People's Republic of China for most of the impetus

behind spreading this pseudoscience. After decades of attempting to suppress the

cultic aspects of Qi Gong, around 1970, in a new era of openness and tolerance,

they decided it would be easier to join 'em than continue to try to beat 'em.

So, the government funded research to measure and demonstrate Qi and then

standardize Qi Gong scope and practice.

The handful of conflicting experimental results involving electromagnetism were

widely criticized by scientist within and outside of China, but that never

stopped a good pseudoscience. The government publicized and widely supported

training in the practices until groups started forming based on claims of

paranormal effects and Confusion morality. Marxist materialism could not

tolerate either, so they went back into suppression mode and banned any teaching

or practice of Qi Gong that was not a form of exercise or dietary supplements

aimed at improving health. This is the main form that has been popularized in

the West over the last two decades, although the suppressed cults in China just

went underground and are apparently still influential. Today about 20% of the

PRC population uses some practice connected to Qi Gong.

I had an office neighbor in the 80s, who was a mainland Chinese scientist and

true believer in Qi Gong. He had participated in the famous Chinese earthquake

study that resulted in the evacuation of millions just before a giant earthquake

hit based on animal behavior. They had not been able to repeat that

demonstration in several decades, so they abandoned trying to read animal

warnings. He similarly was convinced that Qi Gong herbs were going to relieve

his sister's cervical cancer without the benefit of either surgery or

chemotherapy. She died while he was visiting.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Love the self analysis. LOL!

 

Roni

From: " gumboyaya@... " <gumboyaya@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:30 AM

Subject: Re: " Use the Force, Luke! "

Sorry, Confucian rather than Confusion.

Perhaps both Freudian and self-referential.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Roni,

You wrote:

> I never had any spiritual feeling about either qi, qi gong or yin and yang. As

far as I was concerned qi was energy, ...

Except it is an " energy " that cannot be measured by any sort of material

instrumentation. It it NOT a physical energy.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

I understand that. You and are arguing about the " validity " of it, and I'm

only trying to give the language for people to understand to what the words

refer. Not all languages translate exactly, as I'm sure you know, but I tried my

best to come close.

 

Another thing that I don't understand is why it's so important that it

" scientifically " matches western understanding. Perhaps there is something that

we could learn from eastern understanding. After all, they've been around a

whole lot longer.

 

It's sort of like the young wife who would buy a large chunk of meat, cut it in

half, put each half in a different pan and then roast it. When asked why she did

that, she responded that it was the way her mother did it. Finally one day she

asked her mother why she did it and her mother said it was the way her mother

did it. One day the young wife asked her grandmother why she roasted meat that

way and the grandmother replied that she didn't have pans large enough to put

the entire piece of meat into, and cut them so that they would fit the pans that

she had.

 

Some things are not mysteries or even different ideas and knowledge, just

logistics.

 

Roni 

From: " gumboyaya@... " <gumboyaya@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:04 AM

Subject: Re: " Use the Force, Luke! "

Roni,

You wrote:

> I never had any spiritual feeling about either qi, qi gong or yin and yang. As

far as I was concerned qi was energy, ...

Except it is an " energy " that cannot be measured by any sort of material

instrumentation. It it NOT a physical energy.

Chuck

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi, Roni. When I say something is not supported by credible scientific

research beyond chance or placebo it should be taken to mean exactly

that and no more. It DOES NOT mean that whatever is under discussion is

not effective; it does not mean that it is. Only that there is not

supporting evidence that can meet the rather rigid requirements of

science. Anecdotal evidence is not always wrong; however it is always

of insufficient established validity to be used in credible scientific

research. Sometimes anecdotal evidence is correct; sometimes not.

Scientists and those who think in generally the same way tend to be

rather skeptical of anything for which there is no credible evidence.

When we see that there is no evidence for the existence of qi we see it

somewhat the same as the tooth fairy: We can't prove it doesn't exist

but we don't see any reason to believe it does exist. What makes

matters much worse for many unscientific propositions is that the

proposed " theory " of how it is supposed to work flatly contradicts the

most basic of scientific principles.

Consider, for example perpetual motion machines [or free energy

machines]. You're likely to run into such a claim sooner or later, as

they're rather ubiquitous. At car shows any many other places you will

find several people selling hydrogen generators that are claimed to

increase the mileage of your car from 10% to 50%. If you look at how

they are supposed to work they use the electricity from the battery to

produce a small quantity of hydrogen from water/ electrolyte. This

hydrogen is fed into the engine where it is burned along with the

gasoline to produce the energy of motion. They do in fact produce

hydrogen from H2O that is burned in the engine and it produces energy.

But where does the energy come from? It comes from the battery which is

charged by the alternator that is driven by the engine and is used to

break the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. The energy released

from burning hydrogen is always a little less than the energy needed to

break the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen when you take into

account the losses that are always involved in any machine we make. So

what you have is an energy loss rather than an energy gain.

But we don't really need to examine any such claim in detail [and I hope

I got it right above]; we have something called the laws of

thermodynamics. We cannot prove these laws will always hold but

theoretically they have to; and further in none of our research that has

been conducted have we ever seen a violation. We therefore have a great

deal of confidence in them so when we see such a claim [free energy] we

don't have to waste our time.

There are of course sources of energy that we may not have to pay for

[solar, wind, tide] and in that sense [economic] they are " free " but

that is not the meaning of the discussion as they do not violate any

scientific principles. " Energy from nothing " is not involved.

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20%22Use%20the%20Force%2C%20Luke%\

21%22>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sat May 21, 2011 9:18 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> I understand that. You and are arguing about the " validity " of

> it, and I'm only trying to give the language for people to understand

> to what the words refer. Not all languages translate exactly, as I'm

> sure you know, but I tried my best to come close.

>

> Another thing that I don't understand is why it's so important that it

> " scientifically " matches western understanding. Perhaps there is

> something that we could learn from eastern understanding. After all,

> they've been around a whole lot longer.

>

> It's sort of like the young wife who would buy a large chunk of meat,

> cut it in half, put each half in a different pan and then roast it.

> When asked why she did that, she responded that it was the way her

> mother did it. Finally one day she asked her mother why she did it and

> her mother said it was the way her mother did it. One day the young

> wife asked her grandmother why she roasted meat that way and the

> grandmother replied that she didn't have pans large enough to put the

> entire piece of meat into, and cut them so that they would fit the

> pans that she had.

>

> Some things are not mysteries or even different ideas and knowledge,

> just logistics.

>

> Roni

[Guest guest]

You and I  are in the midst of energy every day that comes from the sun. There

is electrical energy given off by our very own bodies. People don't create this

energy, people can't stop this energy and as you yourself have stated, energy

sources are unprovable.

 

Why is it such a difficult thing for you to imagine that there are other energy

sources that we have not been able to fit into our scientific boxes yet?

 

As for science being scepticle, you bet it is. For years and years people,

myself included were telling the doctors that we had pain all over our bodies

that moved around and wasn't static. That we would suddenly go into a state of

mental fog whereby our powers of concentration and memory would severely

diminish. Our sleep patterns were totally altered, and someone like me who used

to fall asleep and sleep like a rock for 8 hours, suddenly couldn't fall asleep

at all, no matter what the time was.

 

It took doctors so long to realize that Fibromyalgia is real. The fact that they

haven't yet found a repeatable test for it means nothing because diabetes used

to be called a syndrome too, until they found a repeatable test.

 

It would seem to me that instead of walking in lockstep, a true scientist would

consider anecdotal evidence when it is repeated millions of times (yes

millions), instead of insulting their patients by telling them that it is all in

their heads. Most of the people I have encountered (I moderate a Fibromyalgia

group of over 3500 people) had busy, productive and fulfilling lives before this

affliction hit us. To think that people like this would suddenly decide they

have all these symptoms is ludicrous. I don't call that science, I call it

stubborn arrogance with a good measure of unconcern for their patients.

 

It's the same with thyroid doctors who refuse to test for anything but TSH, and

dismiss out of hand anything the patient has to say about not feeling well and

having a myriad of hypothyroid symptoms.

 

Thank goodness for the doctors that do care about their patients and are

determined to find out what is wrong and will order the tests that can give them

the answers.

 

I don't really know any scientists aside from Chuck, just doctors, so I really

don't know how they think as a group.

 

After I did extensive research about the atrial fibrillation I have I spoke to

my Cardiologist. Itold him that I felt that the ablation procedure they now do

for this condition, which burns a ring around the heart to eliminate extra

signals, is not something I want to do.

 

My reasons were that it doesn't always work the first time around and has to be

done 2, 3 or 4 times, and even then doesn't always work. Meanwhile all this

heart muscle has been destroyed. In addition, it works best when the patient is

young 20s,30, 40s and much less well in older patients. Finally, it works less

well in women in general because our veins are so much smaller, and there is

much more chance of perforation, either of the vein or the actual heart.

 

When I finished this (admitted) diatribe he said to me " I agree with you. "

The other Cardiologist I see from the same practice who helps me with natural

medicines, after seeing for the last 3-1/2 years how badly I react to things,

even so called natural things has now told me if anything he gives me causes any

kind of reaction he wants me to stop it immediately.

 

As I'm sure you've all seen, I'm pretty determined to have the best care I can

get without it

killing me in the process. I'm not nasty to these people and appreciate the

difficulty they have

trying to treat someone like me. They have gained my respect, and I think I've

gained theirs.

 

Roni

From: <res075oh@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:57 AM

Subject: Re: " Use the Force, Luke! "

Hi, Roni.  When I say something is not supported by credible scientific

research beyond chance or placebo it should be taken to mean exactly

that and no more.  It DOES NOT mean that whatever is under discussion is

not effective; it does not mean that it is.  Only that there is not

supporting evidence that can meet the rather rigid requirements of

science.  Anecdotal evidence is not always wrong; however it is always

of insufficient established validity to be used in credible scientific

research.  Sometimes anecdotal evidence is correct; sometimes not.

Scientists and those who think in generally the same way tend to be

rather skeptical of anything for which there is no  credible evidence. 

When we see that there is no evidence for the existence of qi we see it

somewhat the same as the tooth fairy:  We can't prove it doesn't exist

but we don't see any reason to believe it does exist.  What makes

matters much worse for many unscientific propositions is that the

proposed " theory " of how it is supposed to work flatly contradicts the

most basic of scientific principles.

Consider, for example perpetual motion machines [or free energy

machines].  You're likely to run into such a claim sooner or later, as

they're rather ubiquitous.  At car shows any many other places you will

find several people selling hydrogen generators that are claimed to

increase the mileage of your car from 10% to 50%.  If you look at how

they are supposed to work they use the electricity from the battery to

produce a small quantity of hydrogen from water/ electrolyte.  This

hydrogen is fed into the engine where it is burned along with the

gasoline to produce the energy of motion.  They do in fact produce

hydrogen from H2O that is burned in the engine and it produces energy. 

But where does the energy come from?  It comes from the battery which is

charged by the alternator that is driven by the engine and is used to

break the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen.  The energy released

from burning hydrogen is always a little less than the energy needed to

break the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen when you take into

account the losses that are always involved in any machine we make.  So

what you have is an energy loss rather than an energy gain.

But we don't really need to examine any such claim in detail [and I hope

I got it right above]; we have something called the laws of

thermodynamics.  We cannot prove these laws will always hold but

theoretically they have to; and further in none of our research that has

been conducted have we ever seen a violation.  We therefore have a great

deal of confidence in them so when we see such a claim [free energy] we

don't have to waste our time.

There are of course sources of energy that we may not have to pay for

[solar, wind, tide] and in that sense [economic] they are " free " but

that is not the meaning of the discussion as they do not violate any

scientific principles.  " Energy from nothing " is not involved.

Regards,

..

..

>      Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>     

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20%22Use%20the%20Force%2C%20Luke%\

21%22>

>      matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

>        Sat May 21, 2011 9:18 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> I understand that. You and are arguing about the " validity " of

> it, and I'm only trying to give the language for people to understand

> to what the words refer. Not all languages translate exactly, as I'm

> sure you know, but I tried my best to come close.

>

> Another thing that I don't understand is why it's so important that it

> " scientifically " matches western understanding. Perhaps there is

> something that we could learn from eastern understanding. After all,

> they've been around a whole lot longer.

>

> It's sort of like the young wife who would buy a large chunk of meat,

> cut it in half, put each half in a different pan and then roast it.

> When asked why she did that, she responded that it was the way her

> mother did it. Finally one day she asked her mother why she did it and

> her mother said it was the way her mother did it. One day the young

> wife asked her grandmother why she roasted meat that way and the

> grandmother replied that she didn't have pans large enough to put the

> entire piece of meat into, and cut them so that they would fit the

> pans that she had.

>

> Some things are not mysteries or even different ideas and knowledge,

> just logistics.

>

> Roni

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Hi, Roni. I'll try a few responses below. I'm not trying to irritate

you, you know! [ggg]...

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20%22Use%20the%20Force%2C%20Luke%\

21%22>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sun May 22, 2011 11:01 am (PDT)

>

>

>

> You and I are in the midst of energy every day that comes from the sun.

..

..

And we understand that energy very well. We can detect it with ease,

and we can analyze it seven ways to Sunday.

..

..

> There is electrical energy given off by our very own bodies. People

> don't create this energy,

..

..

Not sure I understand you. We can detect, measure and analyze the

electrical energy given off by our bodies. And as a matter of fact our

bodies DO create that energy [actually, it's an energy conversion

process rather than an energy creation process IMHO]. All extensively

documented in scientific research.

..

..

> people can't stop this energy and as you yourself have stated, energy

> sources are unprovable.

..

..

We can stop the energy by killing the person. We can block it from

reaching locations by such things as Faraday shields I would suppose.

It is after all a very low level energy. I'm not sure what the last

part of your sentence means. We understand the four known forces that

affect us and that we can detect and analyze [only two of which are

relevant at macro levels] them and have done so. If you refer to dark

energy/dark matter, yes they are mysteries. So far we only see them [or

seem to anyway] on cosmological scales.

..

..

>

> Why is it such a difficult thing for you to imagine that there are

> other energy sources that we have not been able to fit into our

> scientific boxes yet?

..

..

I can imagine a great many things. I'm also vaguely aware of some of

the research and experimenting that has been done and that we do not

find any other energy sources [or forces]. Except possibly on the

cosmological scale AFAIK all of the reactions we see are from forces

that we can detect, analyze and measure. If there were some other

forces not yet detected interacting with our everyday lives [and

physics] then it is likely that we would have long ago detected them.

If it is of such a nature that it does not interact with us and our

physics then it is rather a moot point: Because it has to interact with

us to have any kind of effect. If it has no effect on anything physical

then the claimed physical responses in any healing process are obviously

bunk.

To over simplify: I can imagine a tooth fairy but since I don't see

much evidence that such a creature exists I don't give a great deal of

credibility to any such posit. That doesn't mean I can prove they do

not exist; as a matter of fact I can't. Knowing that the vast

preponderance of physics and science suggests there is no such thing I'm

not all that interested in investing any resources in finding out

whether it is true or not. Further: I see about as much supporting

evidence for the tooth fairy as I do for qi. When I start reading that

the philosophy posits that the sun mated with the moon and their

offspring was the planets and the stars I'm out of here. YMMV.

..

..

>

> As for science being scepticle, you bet it is. For years and years

> people, myself included were telling the doctors that we had pain all

> over our bodies that moved around and wasn't static. That we would

> suddenly go into a state of mental fog whereby our powers of

> concentration and memory would severely diminish. Our sleep patterns

> were totally altered, and someone like me who used to fall asleep and

> sleep like a rock for 8 hours, suddenly couldn't fall asleep at all,

> no matter what the time was.

>

> It took doctors so long to realize that Fibromyalgia is real. The fact

> that they haven't yet found a repeatable test for it means nothing

> because diabetes used to be called a syndrome too, until they found a

> repeatable test.

>

> It would seem to me that instead of walking in lockstep, a true

> scientist would consider anecdotal evidence when it is repeated

> millions of times (yes millions), instead of insulting their patients

> by telling them that it is all in their heads.

..

..

The reason that scientists don't use anecdotal evidence in credible

research is that it has a vast record of being unreliable. You simply

can't have reliable results in credible research if you use unreliable

data...Even if that data is correct. Scientific support for [NOT proof

of] a proposition requires the highest level possible in any supporting

evidence if it is to be taken seriously by other scientists.

But medical doctors are not research scientists; they are medical

practitioners. And their " practice " is often as much art as science IMHO.

..

..

> Most of the people I have encountered (I moderate a Fibromyalgia group

> of over 3500 people) had busy, productive and fulfilling lives before

> this affliction hit us. To think that people like this would suddenly

> decide they have all these symptoms is ludicrous. I don't call that

> science, I call it stubborn arrogance with a good measure of unconcern

> for their patients.

>

> It's the same with thyroid doctors who refuse to test for anything but

> TSH, and dismiss out of hand anything the patient has to say about not

> feeling well and having a myriad of hypothyroid symptoms.

..

..

The TSH test seems to suffice for the vast majority of cases. I know

you have a different opinion painfully achieved...

..

..

>

> Thank goodness for the doctors that do care about their patients and

> are determined to find out what is wrong and will order the tests that

> can give them the answers.

..

..

I think most doctors do really care and do their best. Perhaps some

overdo the professional detachment; perhaps others overdo the " bedside

manner " thing. I've read some books written by doctors [and

veterinarians] and they all seemed caring. I can't recall every seeing

a doctor that I thought didn't care; although I've seen some I thought

was wrong.

..

..

>

> I don't really know any scientists aside from Chuck, just doctors, so

> I really don't know how they think as a group.

>

> After I did extensive research about the atrial fibrillation I have I

> spoke to my Cardiologist. Itold him that I felt that the ablation

> procedure they now do for this condition, which burns a ring around

> the heart to eliminate extra signals, is not something I want to do.

>

> My reasons were that it doesn't always work the first time around and

> has to be done 2, 3 or 4 times, and even then doesn't always work.

> Meanwhile all this heart muscle has been destroyed. In addition, it

> works best when the patient is young 20s,30, 40s and much less well in

> older patients. Finally, it works less well in women in general

> because our veins are so much smaller, and there is much more chance

> of perforation, either of the vein or the actual heart.

..

..

My cardiologist suggested the same thing for me. When he told me that

there was a very small risk of side effects such as death I wasn't so

enthusiastic. I still haven't done it; I just take the calcium blocker

or whatever it is.

My young nephew had the same condition as I [i think] and he was

scheduled for that surgery at Shands in Gainesville. He had a very

experienced surgeon doing the procedure and when he found the location

that needed to be eradicated it was so close to a critical area that he

aborted the procedure as being too dangerous. A lessor experienced

physician might have proceeded, and with results that could have been fatal.

..

..

>

> When I finished this (admitted) diatribe he said to me " I agree with you. "

> The other Cardiologist I see from the same practice who helps me with

> natural medicines, after seeing for the last 3-1/2 years how badly I

> react to things, even so called natural things has now told me if

> anything he gives me causes any kind of reaction he wants me to stop

> it immediately.

>

> As I'm sure you've all seen, I'm pretty determined to have the best

> care I can get without it

> killing me in the process. I'm not nasty to these people and

> appreciate the difficulty they have

> trying to treat someone like me. They have gained my respect, and I

> think I've gained theirs.

..

..

I wish you the best. I know I don't always present my ideas in a manner

that is familiar to you. When I speak of things of a scientific nature

I try to present my ideas in a manner that will not make any scientist

who happens to read them have a fit; at least not when he/she realizes

my lay status. But it is a different way of speaking and I'm sure I

don't always succeed.

Regards,

..

..

>

> Roni

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:57 AM

> Subject: Re: " Use the Force, Luke! "

>

> Hi, Roni. When I say something is not supported by credible scientific

> research beyond chance or placebo it should be taken to mean exactly

> that and no more. It DOES NOT mean that whatever is under discussion is

> not effective; it does not mean that it is. Only that there is not

> supporting evidence that can meet the rather rigid requirements of

> science. Anecdotal evidence is not always wrong; however it is always

> of insufficient established validity to be used in credible scientific

> research. Sometimes anecdotal evidence is correct; sometimes not.

>

> Scientists and those who think in generally the same way tend to be

> rather skeptical of anything for which there is no credible evidence.

> When we see that there is no evidence for the existence of qi we see it

> somewhat the same as the tooth fairy: We can't prove it doesn't exist

> but we don't see any reason to believe it does exist. What makes

> matters much worse for many unscientific propositions is that the

> proposed " theory " of how it is supposed to work flatly contradicts the

> most basic of scientific principles.

[Guest guest]

Hi, Roni. After I posted it occurred to me that I may have not answered

you point below very well...

..

..

> > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam%40>

> > <mailto:matchermaam@...

> <mailto:matchermaam%40>?Subject=%20Re%

> 3A%20%22Use%20the%20Force%2C%20Luke%21%22>

> > matchermaam <matchermaam

> <matchermaam>>

>

[...]

> > Why is it such a difficult thing for you to imagine that there are

> > other energy sources that we have not been able to fit into our

> > scientific boxes yet?

> .

..

..

According to Michio Kaku in Parallel Universes we only see about 4% of

the mass/energy of the Universe in our standard model. That leaves 96%

unaccounted for. Most of that 96% is IIRC the result of our

observations of two things: [1]The way stars move within galaxies which

seems to indicate some unknown substance that reacts gravitationally and

[2] the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the Universe which

seems to indicate some kind of antigravity. There is AFAIK no universal

acceptance of his posits but there still seems to be one heck of a lot

we don't know. So the imagination part is rather easy...

So why do I still deem it unlikely that there are other forces

surrounding us that could explain the supposed results of things like

qi, acupuncture or homeopathy? That seems a fair question so I'll try

to give a fair answer [which I already addressed somewhat in my last

post]: In order for any unknown force or energy to " heal " , " cure " , or

to have any effect upon us whatsoever then it must interact with us in

some manner. If it does not interact with us then it cannot have any

effect upon us. It would not matter if there were hundreds of forces or

energies out there if they do no interact with us in some manner. AND:

If it interacted with us then we should have detected it long ago. [For

the moment I'll ignore that the supposed methods by which many quack

products/processes work directly contradict the most basic and best

understood science].

We do in fact have an example of something that in some aspects seems to

meet some of the criteria above: Neutrinos. Neutrinos probably flow

through your body at a rate of hundreds [millions/billions?] every

second without even one of them ever interacting with a particle in your

body. As a matter of fact I think that neutrinos can travel through

billions of miles of lead [much more dense than our bodies] before they

have a 50% chance of striking a particle. So it is extremely unlikely

that your body will ever be affected by a neutrino.

So how do we even know that they exist? They travel through most of our

detection equipment utterly without a trace almost 99.999...% of the

time. Actually at one time they were thought of as imaginary particles

by many [most/all?] and were " invented " to account for a tiny quantity

of energy that seemed to disappear in some of the experiments that were

conducted. However, despite the fact that billions can pass through our

detectors without a trace a tiny percentage of them DO interact and we

can measure/count those. So they are very well understood despite the

fact that they are so elusive.

Any " energy " or " forces " out there that do in fact interact with us

enough to heal or have any other measurable effect should be much

[vastly] less elusive and therefore much easier to detect. But bear in

mind: I'm not a scientist nor do I play one on TV...

Regards,