WTF?


‘Ki-energy’ (life-energy) is believed to increase the immune activity of its practitioners. It has also been shown to cause neuropsychological effects. We undertook this study to obtain objective and scientific evidence as to whether or not a ‘Ki-effect’ could inhibit the growth of cultured cancer cells. Cultured human liver carcinoma cells, HepG2, were used. A Japanese Ki-expert held his fingers toward the cells in culture dishes for 5 or 10 min. After culturing for 24 h, we measured cell numbers, protein concentration per cell, certain mRNA expressions and the synthesis of regucalcin. The results were compared with those for control cells (non-treated cells). We found that the number of cells in the Ki-exposed groups were less than those in the controls by 30.3 and 40.6% with 5 and 10 min Ki-exposure, respectively. The protein content per cell in the Ki-exposed groups (5 and 10 min) was higher than that in the control groups by 38.8 and 62.9%, respectively. These results were statistically significant. Using RT–PCR, we found that the mRNA expression for c-myc, a tumor stimulator gene, was decreased, while that for regucalcin, which suppresses DNA synthesis, was increased. Our molecular biological studies and mathematical model analysis demonstrated that Ki-energy inhibited cancer cell division. The data also indicate that the Ki-effects involve some form of infrared radiation from the human body. This study suggests the possibility that Ki-energy may be beneficial for cancer patients because it suppresses cancer cell growth, and at the same time, it stimulates immune functions of the patients.

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/387

Wasn't double-blinded.

somehow i doubt cancer cells in a dish can experiance a placebo effect.

Such an extraordinary claim in going to have to be replicated many times before it can be accepted as a normal part of physics and biology.

Wasn't double-blinded.
Thanks.

Then if someone tries to use this paper as proof, the double-blind issue is my best bet?

Well, I had a skim read of the full text and while I understand some of their testing methods, and some of it is above my level of understanding. I did notice that it wasn't double blinded which should be done as a standard in any experiment to remove bias from all participants involved.

The thing is, the idea of "ki" is so ridiculous and out-of-whack with what we know about physics and biology that we would need a substantial amount of evidence before we could say that ki exists and has effects with any kind of confidence. I also don't know how integrated this alternative medicine journal is with the wider scientific community. If the same experiment was reproduced by other researchers, using the double-blind method then there could be something at work here.

i might get my girlfriend to read that. she studies medical science.

looks like utter, utter bullshit to me.

the first thing she said was: has this been peer reviewed in a scientific journal?

Yes it has and the journal is indexed on Pubmed which is a good sign as that database is monitored by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health. It is also indexed on Web of Science which again is a good sign as to the legitimacy of the journal itself.

One possible concern is that all of the research on ki and cancer or other biomed issues seems to be published in only this journal. Going through the peer-review process in multiple journals with different editorial boards would help the credibility of this work a great deal...

I am as skeptical of this as some of you are. However, to dismiss this study because it was not double blinded would be improper. Double blinding is only an issue where the subjects could influence the results of the study due to their knowing whether or not they are in a treatment versus a control group Cancer cells are bad ass but as has already been suggested by one respondent, they are certainly not capable of "throwing off" the research because they knew that they were in the experimental rather than the control group...

Is it possible that the researchers themselves fudged the data? Yes, it is and thus single blinding could have helped in this case.

The thing is, the idea of "ki" is so ridiculous and out-of-whack with what we know about physics and biology that we would need a substantial amount of evidence before we could say that ki exists and has effects with any kind of confidence.
Is we you and the mouse in your pocket? It is basically only white westerners that don't believe in Chi. And in my opinion, that is because some liar told white westerners not to believe in it.


I also don't know how integrated this alternative medicine journal is with the wider scientific community. If the same experiment was reproduced by other researchers, using the double-blind method then there could be something at work here.
Are you saying that you will refuse to believe in Chi, until some anonymous person you do not know, performs some study you cannot check the validity of, and gives you permission to believe in chi? That is kind of odd.

Why don't you trust yourself? Why don't you go out and discover if Chi is real or not? Don't you trust your own judgement?

woooohoooo!

we got a live one boys!

Is we you and the mouse in your pocket? It is basically only white westerners that don't believe in Chi. And in my opinion, that is because some liar told white westerners not to believe in it.


Are you saying that you will refuse to believe in Chi, until some anonymous person you do not know, performs some study you cannot check the validity of, and gives you permission to believe in chi? That is kind of odd.

Why don't you trust yourself? Why don't you go out and discover if Chi is real or not? Don't you trust your own judgement?

OK I concede. Chi is real.

Are you saying that you will refuse to believe in Chi, until some anonymous person you do not know, performs some study you cannot check the validity of, and gives you permission to believe in chi? That is kind of odd.

No more odd than believing in chi because
some anonymous person you do not know, performed some study you cannot check the validity of, and gives you permission to believe in chi
Find a better argument.

I'd like to believe in th3 ch33. But my professors won't let me.

Double blinding is only an issue where the subjects could influence the results of the study due to their knowing whether or not they are in a treatment versus a control group...
Is it possible that the researchers themselves fudged the data? Yes, it is and thus single blinding could have helped in this case.This is badly wrong. Single blinding would be used to prevent the subjects from knowing whether they are in the control group. Double blinding additionally prevents the researchers from knowing which group each subject is in, providing a check against the researchers subconciously influencing the results. The lack of double blinding is definately a mark against it.
It's also important to remember that even if a single study has no design flaws and is reported as statistically significant it may just be a fluke (if you do enough studies of some phenomenon, some will inevitably have positive results). Reproduction is key.

somehow i doubt cancer cells in a dish can experiance a placebo effect.

But the testers can. It's called confirmation bias, and I'm sure it played the major role in the effects reported in this study.