Which video are you referring to? I take it it is not the one Robinhood posted?
EDIT: So looking at Henrik's post I guess he is referring to that video as it is the only video posted before his comments. TBH, I think Henrik has not understood what John is saying. To say "The presentation of the above video by the doctor is not about Qi but new age believe" is highly disingenuous. From one perspective it implies John is propagating new age belief when in matter of fact it is new age beliefs that John is challenging.
When Henrik then says "One needs to define qi as the energy which makes tcm accupuncture and herbal work. Instead of getting into all kind of magic force, guidance..Fung shui ....fortunte telling....ect", I have to take issue. As I said, John does not get into 'magic forces etc', to say so is to misrepresent him and, indeed, to argue the opposite to him.
John is drawing from academic and scientific literature BTW, that includes scans of neurological and central nervous system activity, experiments and trials etc. What's more that a lot of this research has gone through a peer review process; that is subjected to critique and falsification.
Of course, Henrik might not be referring to John's lecture or that video but looking at the post order and the way Henrik has constructed his post, it does read as I have read it.