• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

John Chang 'chi master'

somnum

Student
S
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
27
Has anyone seen this video? I would like to know what you think of it.

youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0hnwiHt8

I can't give the direct link because I haven't made enough posts, just add a www if need be.
 
Stray Cat said:
Yes, Chang is a conman. Using Magic tricks.
Nothing to write home about.
Click to expand...

So are all those people in the video in on the con too? Did you watch the entire thing?

For what it's worth I don't want to appear to be totally defending it. I am sceptical of it, but an argument like yours doesn't really seem to cut it.
 
Sorry, I don't have time to go into it right now... look into the history of John Chang, he's well documented on the internet.
Look at the 'tricks' he does. Setting fires, giving electric shocks, sticking chop sticks through tables... all basic magic techniques used.

And yes, the guy making the film is a woo too... otherwise he wouldn't have been going to an acupuncturist to get his eye infection sorted out, he'd have gone to a real doctor.

This kind of Chi has been shown over and over to be non existent.
 
Oh ok could you point me to where he is discredited then? I could not find that information. Thanks.

There's decent science behind acupuncture, maybe not for infections though I don't know enough about it.
 
Last edited:
Then you didn't look very far... Google "John Chang Debunked", you'll get a few hits with that search string.

Now about this 'decent science behind acupuncture'?

Decent-Science.jpg
 
Last edited:
Here's one bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/2/151

Are you trying to make a legitimate point or are you just being snide now with that little graphic?
 
Last edited:
Here's more rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/6/887

possible mechanism anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/2/301
 
Last edited:
Within the first 30 seconds of that video mention is made of "qi" which is known BS. After 90 seconds more of such BS I quit. Do you really not know what to think of it?
 
somnum said:
Here's one bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/2/151

Are you trying to make a legitimate point or are you just being snide now with that little graphic?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm just being snide... it's what I do best. :)

But thanks for the link... sadly as time is short for me at the moment and my knowledge of Medicine is limited (and my knowledge of meta-analysis even more limited), We'll have to see if anyone else wants to take this up.

But for now, I'll say only that I'm not saying acupuncture doesn't work... My jury s still out on that one... just that the commonly held woo mechanism isn't what's causing it to work.
 
SezMe said:
Within the first 30 seconds of that video mention is made of "qi" which is known BS. After 90 seconds more of such BS I quit. Do you really not know what to think of it?
Click to expand...

Well I know it has been documented that that monks can meditate and raise precise locations of body temperature. And since there are constant electric charges flowing through us, I don't see any physiological reason why it should be inherently impossible for someone to be able to cause little charges in a particular location of their body.
 
somnum said:
Well I know it has been documented that that monks can meditate and raise precise locations of body temperature.
Click to expand...

It has also been documented that a giant, slippery, aquatic monster lives in Lochness.
 
Sorry it took so long in the posting - I'm at work and purportedly doing other things - that I missed the additional posts.

Sonnum, have you said yet "I'm just asking questions". I do so love that part. :spjimlad::spjimlad:
 
SezMe said:
Within the first 30 seconds of that video mention is made of "qi" which is known BS. After 90 seconds more of such BS I quit. Do you really not know what to think of it?
Click to expand...

Let's say I can jump higher than any other man alive. Let's say I think angels lift me up for the jump. That doesn't mean they do of course, but the fact that they don't doesn't mean I can't jump higher than anyone else.
 
somnum said:
news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html

or is harvard too 'out there' for you?
Click to expand...

Wow, a great scientific study that was then :rolleyes:

"Although the team obtained valuable data, Benson concludes that "the room was not cold enough to do the tests properly."

But hey, if you need any sheets drying, that's the way I would go about it too.
 
Stray Cat said:
Wow, a great scientific study that was then :rolleyes:

"Although the team obtained valuable data, Benson concludes that "the room was not cold enough to do the tests properly."

But hey, if you need any sheets drying, that's the way I would go about it too.
Click to expand...


Sorry you missed this part then nature.com/nature/journal/v295/n5846/abs/295234a0.html

But please, continue to ridicule something you know nothing about, it really makes you look like the erudite sceptic we all strive to be.
 
somnum said:
Let's say I can jump higher than any other man alive. Let's say I think angels lift me up for the jump. That doesn't mean they do of course, but the fact that they don't doesn't mean I can't jump higher than anyone else.
Click to expand...
No, the fact that you can't jump higher than anyone else is enough evidence to counter your claim.

Let's say Chriss Angel really claims to be able to levitate, then he gets put to the test, not a vague test, a real test that ruled out the use of magic trickery... He fails the test, it doesn't matter what is claimed was the mechanism for the levitation, it is found to be trickery.

Let's see John Chang or any other Chi 'expert' putting themselves under test that rules out magic trickery... because I could do many of things he does and I don't have any Chi to help me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom