here, I reach back into my archives and post a 2005 annotated scan of the UK-Skeptics' qi definition:
001. UK-Skeptics :
001.a. state currently in "Qi, Chi, Ch'i":
"qi is a metaphysical belief [...in] universal life force or energy [...that] permeates all matter [...and is] the source of life [...with] roots in vitalism [...a] belief that life, the soul, or the spirit is separate from the physical form [a form of dualism, actually...] qi has never been measured or shown to exist."
Note: this is the same language as in 2005. I've often labeled naturopathy's 'qi'-like premise 'purposeful life spirit', as it encompasses teleology, spiritism-dualism, and vitalism.
001.b. wrote in 2005, which I printed, highlighted, and scribbled-up:
Note: such vitalism is a core premise of naturopathy, which is still falsely labeling itself all across North America as "science-based". When is evidence not necessary to make a scientific claim? Naturopathy. So when is nonscience and science the same thing? Naturopathy. When is a physician also a metaphysician and a belief system wrongly termed "objective"? You got it: