[DESS]

Dude, will you please put this in perspective? An unemployed guy is flapping his gums about buying a private jet in less than a decade. And maybe you should read your own link. Seriously, this is getting more and more ######ed.

Skeptical Inquirer magazine criticised the lack of falsifiability and testability of these claims [12]. The evidence provided is usually anecdotal and because of the self-selecting nature of the positive reports, as well as the subjective nature of any results, highly susceptible to confirmation bias and selection bias.[13] References to modern scientific theory are questionable. Brainwaves do have an electrical signal, and any magnetic field produced by the brain is actually negligible. Not to mention the required shielding of a room against outside magnetic sources, to enable the minuscule magnetic field of the brain to be isolated and detected by very sensitive equipment. So, "the brain's magnetic field of 10 -15 tesla quickly dissipates from the skull and is promptly swamped by other magnetic sources, not to mention the earth's magnetic field of 10 -5 tesla, which overpowers it by 10 orders of magnitude!" [14]
The use of the term "metaphysical law" has also come under fire (of the term and)
Both Dr. Victor Stenger (PhD. Physics, UCLA 1963) and Dr.Leon Lederman (PhD. Physics Columbia Univ.) are critical of references to quantum physics to bridge any unexplained or seemingly implausible effects, which are hallmark traits of modern pseudoscience. [15][16] [17]
Writing in the New York Times, Virginia Heffernan said: "“The Secret” is not really a book but a series of misquotations from historical figures and fraudulent maxims from no-count hucksters. And yet something in that gooey red waxy seal on the front of “The Secret,” and the book’s believe-in-magic glitter, takes me to a happy place." The hitherto undiscovered "Secret", is actually a mix of misunderstood quantum physics and a re-telling of "New Thought" fallacies, which have been around since the late 18th century [18].
The principles of the law of attraction have also been interpreted in the realm of medicine and illness. In 1990, Bernie Siegel (a retired assistant clinical professor of surgery at Yale) published a popular book, Love, Medicine and Miracles, which asserted that the threat of disease was related to a person's imagination, will, and belief.[13] Siegel primarily advocated "love" as the source of healing and longevity stating that "if you want to be immortal, love someone."[19][20] Some argue that this claim is clearly falsified by the eventual death of every known human, despite the propensity of many to love each other. As yet, no immortal loving people have been discovered. Siegel's description has been largely rejected by the medical community.[21] The most notable critic is neuroendocrinologist and Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky, who devoted a whole chapter in his book Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers to critiquing Siegel. Sapolsky refers to Siegel's general idea as "benign gibberish" but is strongly critical of what he sees as blaming patients for their illness, based only on questionable anecdotal evidence[22]. Sapolsky sums up his primary criticism as follows:

Where the problems become appallingly serious is when Siegel concentrates on the main point of his book. No matter how often he puts in the disclaimers saying that he's not trying to make people feel guilty, the book's premise is that (a) cancer can be caused by psychosocial factors in the person; (b) cancer (or any other disease, as far as I can tell) is curable if the patient has sufficient courage, love and spirit; (c) if the patient is not cured, it is because of the insufficient amounts of those admirable traits. As we have just seen, this is not how cancer works, and a physician simply should not go about telling seriously ill people otherwise.[22]