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]
(Sorry, I forgot to reference. These quotes are from Wikipedia.)
Why does anyone still call reiki "therapy"?
What are you quoting? It doesn't seem to be the article.
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.
The argument against it isn't that it doesn't produce effect in ... (read more)