(Sorry, I forgot to reference. These quotes are from Wikipedia.)
Through the use of this technique, practitioners believe that they are transferring "universal energy" through the palms of the practitioner, which they believe encourages healing.
It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.
Most research on Reiki is poorly designed and prone to bias. There is no reliable empirical evidence that Reiki is helpful for treating any medical condition [...]
Why does anyone still call reiki "therapy"?
What are you quoting? It doesn't seem to be the article.
It is based on qi ("chi"), which practitioners say is a universal life force, although there is no empirical evidence that such a life force exists.
It happens to be based on "ki" not "qi"/"chi". "Qi" (with the alternative spelling "Chi") is a term of Chinese medicine. Reiki is a framework by a monk of Japanse Buddhism.
Why does anyone still call reiki "therapy"?
The argument against it isn't that it doesn't produce effect in ...
Very interesting decision from the one of the leading scientific publications to publish an article about Reiki therapy.
http://www.nature.com/news/consider-all-the-evidence-on-alternative-therapies-1.18547
[Edit: should be Nature publishes an article about alternative therapy]