And here's another interesting article that does indeed seem to be "peer-reviewed":
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=59661This study article admits that there were no blind trials or controls and though the study seems to merit further research, does not "prove" anything.
But again, keep in mind, that "peer-reviewed" really does not = validity. For instance, I found an article from one of the skeptic society sites that really rips a "peer-reviewed" study on the effects of prayer on inducing pregnancy in infertile women. The study was incredibly flawed by most scientific standards, and some of the people involved in the study, were suspect for a whole host of reasons. It was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine and the research was done at the "prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York".
Nevertheless, though "peer-reviewed", it is now used by skeptics to further poke holes at things they are already convinced are nonsense. And because there are legitimate reasons to doubt this research, it probably also makes it harder for more such research to be done.
I really find that the value of Qigong in general and SFQ in particular is "in the fruits". The best way to influence people is the same way to get to Carnegie Hall (ala the old joke):
PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE! 
