Study Entices Thoughts Of Hands-On Healing

[Celebration]

http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-healingtouch0728.artjul28,0,4379719.story

Steeped in white-coat science since she earned her Ph.D. in cell biology at Columbia University 20 years ago, Gloria Gronowicz is about the last person you'd expect to put stock in the touchy-feely discipline of energy medicine.But then the University of Connecticut researcher saw it with her own eyes, under a high-power microscope in her own laboratory, where, once, only well-accepted biological building blocks — proteins, mitochondria, DNA and the like — got respect.

Therapeutic Touch performed by trained energy healers significantly stimulated the growth of bone and tendon cells in lab dishes.

Her results, recently published in two scientific journals, provide novel evidence that there may be a powerful energy field that, when channeled through human hands, can influence the course of events at a cellular level.

"What she's showing is an association that defies explanation with what we currently know," said Margaret A. Chesney, a professor of medicine at the University of Maryland and former deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. "She's Daniel Boone."

Gronowicz and others said more studies are needed to figure out how and why Therapeutic Touch seems to stimulate cell growth — and if the findings can be applied to patient care.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Oh. Well. If you don't know the answer, then it must be MAGIC...

We're a stupid, stupid country.

[Ian David]

4. Yes, we are. Some more stupid (apparently) than others. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

12. There is a wealth of double-blind studies showing the efficacy of hands-on healing

Not that any of that will convince those who will not to see.

[BlooInBloo]

13. Oooga-booga!!!! I'll put a hex on you!

[Ian David]

22. How dare you be too closed-minded to beliebe in magic! CLAP YOUR HANDS IF YOU BELIEVE IN FAERIES!N/T

[BlooInBloo]

24. If you don't clap loudly enough, tinkerbell will die! And it'll be YOUR FAULT!!! CLAP LOUDER!!!!!

[Ian David]

19. No. There is not. And it won't convince me because I am not stupid. n/t

[aspergris]

39. so...

(disclaimer I have no idea if this stuff works)

you are admitting that no amount of peer reviewed studies, etc. will convince you and your mind is already made up

iow, you are exactly the same as some fundie who says that no matter what the evidence says, he knows the real truth.

dogmatism. it's what's for dinner

[Ian David]

40. No...

Studies have to be replicated and reproduced so that you know they weren't faked or mistaken.

I sincerely doubt that anyone will be able to reproduce an effect created by magic in a subsequent study.

You do a study and tell your peers, "Now, YOU do what I did and see if you get the same results."

Remember "Lab Reports" in High School?

[aspergris]

46. then we have no disagreement

I read your post as saying no matter what evidence is revealed, you will never believe in this stuff.


that would make you dogmatic, fundie-like

if you are saying that one study is not proof, then I HEARTILY agree.

[Ian David]

48. No...

I am saying that if credentialed scientists confirm her results and reproduce her results, then I will believe it.

But that will not happen.

And I do not believe that will happen, because I am not a total fucking moron.

[aspergris]

51. oh, well then you are just

omniscient and have perfect ability to see the future.

my bad. yer not a fundie.

you ARE god.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

45. If this was real, it would be practiced by EVERYONE and would

have been done for CENTURIES. What could have kept it secret? Explain that. What?

People figured out how to use fire and build structures and plow fields. This is pretty simple, this hand-rubbing stuff. Something you might pick up in the sack. It's a wonder people get sick at all with all the hand-rubbing that goes on in the world.

Why is the obvious so bloody hard to see?

[aspergris]

54. because

as anybody who has ever studied science, and the history of same knows - what seems obvious really aint.

and often what seems obvious (the sun revolving around the earth) is flat out illusion.

again, I do NOT believe in therapeutic touch.

I am saying *if* there was sufficient evidence to believe it wsa real, I will believe.

Peer reviewed, reproduced studies.

[Ian David]

57. I agree. Peer reviewed, reproduced studies.

This has not been reproduced.

And I sincerely doubt it ever will be.

And if it is, I will be charging people to have my penis rubbed on them.

[aspergris]

62. again, i have no problem with that

But now you are backpedaling. initially, iirc you said there was no way this study would be reproducible.

Now you are saying you "sincerely doubt"

I am on the same page. I sincerely doubt.

But I don't claim to KNOW

you initially said you did.

btw, I'd love to see Penn and teller do a nice rip on this stuff

[valerief]

60. How can you dismiss centuries of hand rubbing? People have

been rubbing each other for eons. How do they get sick?

[Ian David]

63. They;'re doing it wrong. They're supposed to use penises, not hands. n/t

[valerief]

68. Enough with the manpoles. nt

[Ian David]

69. I prefer the term, "Biometric Energy Channeling Flesh Rod." n/t

[Celebration]

59. hands on healing HAS been done for centuries n/t

[valerief]

64. By EVERYONE? Everyone rubs other people. Everyone should know

they can cure sickness by rubbing. But then it would have to work for everyone, wouldn't it? And it doesn't.

[Ian David]

66. I feel better after I get a lapdance. n/t

[Celebration]

70. Do pills work for everyone? n/t

[Ian David]

71. No. But most poisons do. However, "The Evil Eye" usually doesn't. n/t

[valerief]

75. LOL. You're really quite funny when you lay off the manpole and urine stuff. nt

[valerief]

74. Not as well as an axe to the skull works for everyone. But that's touching the wrong way, I guess. n

[Ian David]

65. And Ghandi drank his own pee every day. Try it! n/t

[aspergris]

37. actually

there's an old saying that any technology that is sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.

[Ian David]

41. And they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

44. ... by somebody suitably ignorant.

[aspergris]

49. so, you are saying Arthur C Clarke is "suitably ignorant"

LOL

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )

[Ian David]

52. Arthur C. Clarke was a skeptic and would agree with me that THIS is not technology...

what you are talking about is simply woo-woo wishful thinking.

Why don't you go try some of your own, natural golden fountain?

[aspergris]

58. regardless

you called AClarke ignorant.

which makes you look... well.. ignorant.

for the 100th time. i certainly don't believe in therapeutic touch

or crystals
or telekinesis, etc.

But unlike you, i do not KNOW that at some point in the future, TTouch might be proven to work.

This would require multiple, repeatable peer reviewed studies, of course.

[Ian David]

61. No, I did NOT call Arthur C. Clarke ignorant. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

53. No - I was correctly finishing the thought. Durr.

[Ian David]

50. We have woo-woo forums for a reason so that idiots don't embarass themselves too publicly. n/t

[aspergris]

67. i agree

i never believed in telekinesis ESP and all that crap. and i am a big fan of randy who debunks this crap.

however, iw il never be so close minded that i will not be open to DATA

recall that recently doctors started using leeches again. they have therapeutic benefit.

[valerief]

2. I brought a pineapple to the star god so that we can have a healthy summer.

I also never walk on curbstones; it's the portal to Hell.

I can do magic thinking, too.

[Ian David]

6. Most human biometric energy is focused in the penis.

I'm going to convince people (mostly women, actually) that I can heal their energy fields by rubbing my penis on them.

That dampness you feel are the toxins being drawn-out of your body!

[valerief]

9. Save it for the OP, ninny. nt

[Ian David]

11. Sorry. I did not mean I would rub my penis on you.

Well..

Send me a picture anyway.

[BlooInBloo]

16. I lol'd.

[Ian David]

3. Deffinitively debunked years ago by a nine-year-old girl's science project published in JAMA.

So, in case you were wondering, YOUR answer to the question, "Are you smarter than a FOURTH grader?" is a resounding...

NO!

Now, grow the fuck up and let the adults worry about things like medicine, okay?

Geesh!

People still believe this shit?

REALLY?



See:

11-year-old's study debunks touch therapy

Journal prints her data from science-fair project

By Gina Kolata
New York Times

Two years ago, Emily Rosa of Loveland, Colo., designed and carried out an experiment that challenges a leading treatment in alternative medicine. Her study, reported today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, has thrown the field into tumult.

Emily is 11. She did the experiment for her fourth-grade science fair.

The technique she challenges is therapeutic touch, in which healers manipulate what they call the "human energy field" by passing their hands over a patient's body without actually touching the patient. The method is practiced in healing centers and medical centers throughout the world, and is taught at prominent universities and schools of nursing.

Tens of thousands of people have been trained to treat patients through the use of therapeutic touch. Its practitioners insist that the human energy field is real and that anyone can be trained to feel it.

But Emily asked a sort of "emperor's new clothes" type of question. Could therapeutic-touch practitioners actually detect a human energy field? Her method was devilishly simple.

It was a question critics of alternative medicine had asked before. But only one practitioner agreed to submit to a test, said James Randi, a magician and anti-pseudoscience crusader who conducted the test.

Emily, however, was able to recruit 21 practitioners. Her mother, Linda Rosa, a nurse who is among the critics of therapeutic touch, said she believed Emily succeeded because practitioners did not feel threatened by a 9-year-old girl.

More:
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/tt2.htm


If you do not feel thoroughly embarrassed...

Well, you really SHOULD.

[Celebration]

5. Published in Journal of Orthopedic Research June 2008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18524012?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

In conclusion, Therapeutic Touch appears to increase human osteoblast DNA synthesis, differentiation and mineralization, and decrease differentiation and mineralization in a human osteosarcoma-derived cell line.

[Ian David]

7. None of those words actually mean anything. n/t

[Celebration]

8. LOL n/t

[Ian David]

10. Seriously. n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Five years ago, I totally tore my left ACL (a major tendon in your knee).

I consulted a surgeon and he suggested a trial of physical therapy before we decided whether to pursue surgery. At that point, my leg was very unstable, and I essentially had to learn how to walk again.

I had three Reiki treatments with my teacher. She performed Reiki on my entire body, with concentration on my knee.

When I returned to the surgeon, he was amazed that the knee completely healed, meaning the bleeding stopped, the swelling receded, and my knee seemed to have stabilized, obviating the need for surgery altogether. My doctor told me this was only the second time in long practice that he had seen someone heal where surgery would only (excuse the pun) be a step backwards.

No the two parts of the torn ACL didn't meld back together, but to this day, I have no problem with the knee or the leg. I can use the eliptical machine, the treadmill, and other machines at the gym. No pain, nothing. It's fine.

[Ian David]

18. A single anecdote does not evidence make.

I once received oral sex and my cold went away.

I should write a book on it.

[Celebration]

29. maybe do a published study, as was done here n/t

[Ian David]

35. ONE study whose results will NEVER be duplicated because it's STUPID and IMPOSSIBLE.

You wait until the next study, or until her peers run her out on a rail.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Dupe. Sorry.

[Celebration]

17. what a great story!

Thanks for the inspiration.

[Celebration]

21. delete

[Ian David]

23. Argument from authority. n/t

[Celebration]

26. from a PUBLISHED STUDY

[Ian David]

28. Fleishman and Pons were published, too. So what? n/t

[Celebration]

34. let's see

You don't like anecdotal, you don't like peer reviewed published work. Hard to satisfy.

[Ian David]

36. There are studies for THIS...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=37819&mesg_id=37819

Go try it!

[Ian David]

20. If anyone here believs all this stuff, please try this...

Enhance Your Immune System The Natural Way-- FOR FREE-- if You Hate Modern Allopathic Medicine!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=37819&mesg_id=37819

[Celebration]

25. more from the article....

Even when early studies showed some evidence of healing in patients treated with energy therapies, it was impossible to say whether the improvement was a result of the touch. More likely, critics suggested, the nurturing therapy simply improved the patient's frame of mind, promoting a healing response.

Gronowicz was in the doubting camp. She had spent her career studying the biology of bone cells. Her work with hormones, growth factors and tissue engineering has shed light on the very elements of bone — a slow, sometimes tedious effort she hopes might someday help doctors find treatments for crippling diseases.

But when a colleague asked her to collaborate on an experiment looking into the power of Therapeutic Touch, she was curious. As a full professor in the department of surgery, with tenure and respect, Gronowicz had the stature to dabble in an endeavor that some of her scientific colleagues might criticize as a fool's errand.

"If I was just starting out, it would be the end of my career," Gronowicz said.

She applied for a National Institutes of Health grant to fund an experiment designed to isolate the mind/body conundrum from the question of energy healing by applying Therapeutic Touch techniques to presumably inanimate bone cells cultured in an incubator.

[valerief]

27. Enough already with this nonsense. Don't you have a "What do I

do with this awful RW email I received?" post to make?

[Celebration]

30. Have something against peer reviewed professional journals?? n/t

[Ian David]

32. No, just this one. It's wrong because it invokes magic. n/t

[aspergris]

42. rubbish

(disclaimer... i have no idea if therapeutic touch works... i kind of doubt it)

ANY technology we don't understand is indistinguishable from magic.

i certainly treat this stuff with skepticism. you, otoh are saying essentially that you KNOW the study is wrong.

that's called dogmatism. you might as well be a fundie

[Ian David]

47. No, it is not. It just seems like magic to stupid people who don't understand it. n/t

[Dora]

98. Truer words were never spoken.

"It just seems like magic to stupid people who don't understand it."



:rofl:

[valerief]

33. No, just magic thinking. Doesn't the current administration and its

mockery of a Judiciary convince you that "official" doesn't mean anything anymore?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

31. And lots of Chinese fellows...

Who can kill or cure you with one finger smile enigmatically.

[Celebration]

38. This is fun

But I think there are some people in this thread that need to immediately check blood pressure and other vital signs.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

56. If this were real, it would have been practiced by EVERYONE and

would have been done for CENTURIES. What could have kept it secret? Explain that. What?

People figured out how to use fire and build structures and plow fields. This is pretty simple, this hand-rubbing stuff. Something you might pick up in the sack. It's a wonder people get sick at all with all the hand-rubbing that goes on in the world.

Why is the obvious so bloody hard to see?

[Speck Tater]

72. What is truly amazing about such a study

is that it brings out the arrogance and certainty of both the skeptics who KNOW that it must be false, and the true believers who KNOW that it must be true.

The reason why both the dedicated skeptics and the true believers make the same mistake is that they are both addicted to having the security blanket of certainty. They both prize that sense of certainty above the truth, whatever that truth may turn out to be.

True objectivity means being strong enough to be comfortable with uncertainty, and a willingness to be surprised from time to time. But dogmatic certainty leaves no possibility of ever being surprised by a result, and so must defend itself, regardless of which dogmatic belief is held.

I've always been skeptical of the true believers, but I've always been just as skeptical of the reflexive skeptics who just KNOW what is possible and what is not, in all cases, and under all circumstances.

In fact, some of the very worst pseudo science I've ever found has been printed in the pages of Skeptical Inquirer where pseudo science in the service of dogmatic scientism is every bit as egregious as pseudo science in service of some loony bin crackpot idea. One example was an experiment to "disprove" Sheldrake's morphogenic field hypothesis. In spite of the fact that Sheldrake's theory is very likely a crackpot bit of nonsense, the "experiment" printed in Skeptical Inquirer (around 15 years ago or so) claimed to have disproved it by demonstrating that a computer's quartz crystal clock did not, in fact, run faster and faster as it performed the same calculations over and over. That is the dumbest bit of absurd pseudo science I ever read, yet there it was, enshrined in the hallowed pages of the great bastion of "true science", Skeptical Inquirer. And I can't even begin to count the number of Skeptical Inquirer studies that have "proved" some conclusion by first, somewhat surreptitiously or indirectly, assuming the truth of the conclusion to be proved, and then reasoning from that assumption.

In short, I don't trust wo-wo goofballs, and and DEFINITELY don't trust self-proclaimed skeptics who have appointed themselves as protectors at the gates of science. Both groups are just too damned certain of their superior certainty, and both groups are more often wrong than right.

[Celebration]

73. Actually, I think we agree on a lot

The study needs to be replicated. The difference is that some of us think it probably is replicable, at least using the same "healers", and some people saying no way will it be replicable.

I knew I would get resistance, but I have to admit, it has been a little overwhelming. Whew!

[valerief]

76. I don't understand why centuries of civilization wouldn't have

made this obvious to everyone since everyone rubs other people. How do people get sick if they're always getting rubbed? How did soooooooo many people discover how to grow food and not discover this? Why is it such a secret? Cause it's bunk!

I know. The obvious hurts.

[Celebration]

77. actually, it is not a secret

Reiki isn't exactly rubbing though. It is light touch, and movements above the body. Shamans of old have used similar techniques for thousands of years. This isn't anything new.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hvn_nbr_2]

83. Well, actually...

you're the one who's dumb as a mud fence for insisting repeatedly in this thread that the study was about nothing but "rubbing" like everyone does all the time.

[valerief]

85. Oh, I'm sorry. Magic rubbing. nt

[Speck Tater]

90. Invoking the word "magic"

is only meant to ridicule the process. It adds nothing of value to your argument, since NO claim of "magic" was made in the first place. The use of the word "magic" was introduced by YOU, not by the original claim.

If your conclusion is true then surely you can support it with strong arguments, and not simple-minded ridicule.

By your method of reasoning, your are trying to disprove this study by the use of voodoo logic.

See, by introducing the derogatory adjective "voodoo", I have NOT added any strength whatsoever to my argument. I've only taken it down to the kindergarten level of name calling. This is exactly equivalent to telling the original poster "You're wrong because you're a poopy head."

If you are going to claim the use of logic, then use logic, not the pseudo logic of "reasoning by ridicule".

[hvn_nbr_2]

92. In the land of the fake skeptic, name-calling is as good as proof...

as long as it's you calling the names.

[Speck Tater]

89. Classic straw man.

It doesn't really matter whether your conclusion is true or false, your reasoning is flawed, so your argument is spurious.

Stretched analogies:

"People are rubbing people" does not equate to a particular and very specific activity intentionally directed at healing.

"How do people get sick..." Nobody has every claimed that this technique (let alone just "rubbing people") would cure any and all disease processes. The only claim made was that, under certain circumstances, and for certain conditions, it it claimed that the technique aids in healing, or may facilitate healing.

Your erroneous characterization is rather like saying that people have been chewing on tree bark for a million years or more. How do people ever get sick if the bark of the white willow contains salicylic acid. The fact that this reasoning is flawed is obvious when we take into account that synthetic salicylic acid (aspirin) has certain limited therapeutic properties for certain conditions, and no claim was ever made that white willow was a cure-all for all disease processes.

Obviously your line of reasoning falls in the category of pseudo science.

If your conclusion is true, then you should be able to supply strong arguments in its favor, not flawed pseudo logic.

[hvn_nbr_2]

91. Ah, an open but skeptical mind. How rare in this forum.

Rare, and refreshing. I mean "open" in the sense of "open" as opposed to "will believe anything." And I mean "skeptical" in the sense of the actual meaning of the word "skeptical" rather than "knee-jerk, know-it-all rejectionist." So many of both here.

One of my favorite kinds of "debunkings" is the kind that implicitly makes the assumption, "If the Amazing Randi can fake the appearance of a phenomenon without actually doing the phenomenon, then that proves that the phenomenon does not exist in the universe." (Corollary: If two drunk Scotsmen do a bad imitation of a supposed phenomenon, that proves that all supposed instances of that phenomenon are fakes.)

Two of my favorite "believe anythings" are the "phenomenon" of the Photon Belt, which is going to make the earth reverse its rotation soon, and anything concerned with "the frequency of the earth."

[Speck Tater]

94. Good points.

The first is the over-used, but entirely fallacious argument "If it CAN be faked, then it MUST be fake." Part of the problem with this argument as used by dogmatic skeptics is that often used the even more flawed form "If I can fake something remotely similar in appearance to the phenomenon, then the phenomenon, which only slightly resembles what I faked, must also be fake."

Add to the list of nonsense that the gullible spout, anything to do with "spirits on a higher vibrational level" or "higher vibrational planes." They endlessly repeat this nonsense without having a clue what they're talking about, and with no realization of the implications of their so-called "higher vibrations". (e.g. the electromagnetic spectrum of "higher vibrations" from ultraviolet through microwave radiation to X-Rays. Do they even realize that if a ghost is on a higher vibration exposure to it is going to fry them to a crisp in a few microseconds?)

[Q3JR4]

79. Like this guy

Jensen, A.R., who published a journal article in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969 titled How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? which--among other things--purported to show that the gap in intelligence between white folk and black folk was genetic and not societal (that is based on faulty and racially biased IQ tests). (Jensen, A.R., How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review 39, pp. 1–123, 1969)

It has to be true, after all (:sarcasm:) It was published in a scientific journal!

Just because something is published in a scientific journal (like the article cited in this post) doesn't make it true or beholding to our adulation. It could be shit that someone completely made up in order to push some kind of agenda (like the article cited in this post). The only thing we can do is wait for more (different) people to perform the same tests and see where it takes us. That is, after all, the essence of the scientific method.

Q3JR4.

[valerief]

80. People have been rubbing people ever since the dawn of, well, people.

If it worked, we'd all be doing it and never getting sick.

The obvious is so damned obvious sometimes, isn't it?

[Celebration]

82. you are being silly

1. Reiki is not "rubbing people." There are techniques that are learned. As far as I know the "rubbing people" could be sham reiki.

2. You could use the same argument for prescription medicine. If it worked, we'd all be doing it and never get sick. Right?

[valerief]

84. Rubbing is rubbing. I'm not being silly. I'm being rational. nt

[Celebration]

86. there isn't ANY rubbing

Rubbing is rubbing. It is not reiki!! How can you even express an opinion when you don't know the first thing about the technique?

[valerief]

87. Sorry. Magic "jazz" hands. I must have misunderstood the

"hands-on" healing subject line.

[Celebration]

88. It is GWB that does the rubbing when he touches

Not reiki practitioners!

[hvn_nbr_2]

96. Rubbing is rubbing. I just proved that Boy Scouts can't start fires by rubbing sticks.

I rubbed two sticks together and no fire started. QED.

So you say, but but but... you have to use the right materials and set them up the right way and use the proper technique under the proper conditions. But I say rubbing is rubbing. I'm being rational, by your definition of rational.

Do you even know what Therapeutic Touch is? If you think it's just rubbing, you don't have a clue what it is or what you're talking about.

[conscious evolution]

122. No you are not

All you are doing is demonstrating your complete ignorance about a subject that you obviously know nothing about.

Some of you skeptics blow my mind sometimes.You go on and on about "unprovable woo woo bs" and then when someone actually does clinical studies that may prove you wrong you get bent out of shape about it.
It reminds me of republicans sometimes.

[Celebration]

123. yeah, you would think they would welcome studies like this

But wait, that is actually "logical" to want studies.

[Celebration]

81. I don't "get" the attempted analogy

If you read the article, the author was not trying to promote an agenda. In fact, she was a skeptic. She was asked to do a scientific study and would have published it had the results not been favorable. I don't think you can compare education research to tendons in petri dishes.

[Q3JR4]

93. I'm saying that one

journal article does not a valid scientific theory make.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Q3JR4.

[Celebration]

95. well, I agree with that

But it makes for an interesting post/idea in the Health Forum. No?

[varkam]

97. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Honestly, this study is a little surprising - but given the abundance of negative research, and the fact that Reiki was debunked by a nine year old , it seems that there is still a very long way to go in showing that it actually does something. I'm thinking that the more likely explanation is that there is something else going on.

[Celebration]

101. Debunking the nine year old girl

By the Rocky Mountain Skeptics--

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

Much more at the website but here are some of the paragraphs--

Experimenters’ Bias-- LS and LR have published numerous articles debunking TT. They are members of or founders of groups whose purpose is to expose TT as unsound scientifically. They therefore have a well-established reputation in the skeptical community as adversaries of the TT practice as being science-based. Since ER is the daughter and step-daughter of LR and LS, it is difficult to imagine that she does not share her primary care giver’s attitudes about TT. Thus, it is highly likely that the experimental design and the experimenters themselves were biased against the existence of the HEF. Any honest experiment, therefore, should have been conducted, and data recorded by neutral experimenters.

..........................

Sampling Bias--Based on the description in the Methods section of the JAMA article, LR and LS found 25 TT practitioners (TTps) in Northeast Colorado "by searching for advertisements and following other leads," (p 1007). Of these twenty-five, twenty-one agreed to be tested. Nowhere in the Methods section is a description of any parameters established prior to the search for TTps that would have established objective criteria for them (e.g. number of hours trained, certificates, classes). It is clear that no random sampling was intended or even possible. This may be justified by the fact that, at the initial stage of this whole endeavor, the idea was simply to perform a 4th grade science project. Additionally, we have no understanding of what is meant by "other leads." After all anyone can claim to do HEF work, even those suffering from self delusion.

..........................

Unclear Protocol--During the data-gathering phase of the experiment, the only attempt to control for any aspect of the experiment’s parameters is the coin-flipping procedure. We are told that Emily flipped a coin several times and 10 flips constituted a trial set. There was an opaque divider separating the TTp from Emily; a towel was placed over the arm of the TTp to permit "blinding". This aspect of the test procedure, while called "blinding" is actually the minimum requirement for obscuring the actual test from the participant. Based on the description in the JAMA article, there was never any consideration given to an attempt to double-blind the experiment in any way. No matter the difficulties encountered in trying to double-blind the test, it should have been done in order for the experiment to have produced anything approaching valid test results.

...........................

Controls--The description of attempts to control for testable variables is very limited. The totality of the discussion consists of: "To examine whether air movement or body heat might be detectable by the experimental subjects, preliminary tests were performed on seven other subjects who had no training or belief in TT. Four were children who were unaware of the purpose of the test. Those results indicated that the apparatus prevented tactile cues from reaching the subject." (p 1008) This description does not constitute a control. If it was the same experimental protocol then what were the results? What about other possible cues? How were the controls selected? Did the experimenter go to the controls’ houses or did they all come to her house to be tested all in one session? If it was not the same protocol then what value is the control procedure?

[varkam]

112. .

From your link:

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this report is that twenty-one people who accepted the challenge to be tested by the authors failed to produce outcomes necessary to convince us that the HEF exists. They do not prove that the HEF does not exist.

Doesn't sound like a "debunking". Rather, sounds a lot like they're agreeing with the study. Note that it is impossible to prove a negative, and with research, when you have a negative result the correct way to interpret that is that you fail to reject the null hypothesis.

[Celebration]

113. what they are saying is

It means nothing that 21 people, who are picked using no rational rhyme or reason, no questions asked about experience, etc., cannot perform this test. The skeptic group was especially critical about the selection process of the people to be tested. They can come to no broader conclusions than the particular group of people "selected" for the study.

[varkam]

117. They were community-based practitioners.

They were selected because they advertised their services as reiki practitioners. Is that selection "using no rhyme or reason"?

I know you're trying real hard to make this into some kind of win for the woo crowd, but it's not going to happen. Even at best, it's still negative for you folks - which is pretty much all you have: a heap of negative research. As was said, negative research, such as the research done by this , doesn't mean the HEF doesn't exist - after all, it could exist...and the tooth fairy could live in my apartment as well...but all it means is that it has not been demonstrated to exist.

And the conclusions that you are drawing, or at least trying to draw, are rather absurd. Using your "logic", clinical studies cannot demonstrate effectiveness of a course of treatment for anyone except the people who are in the study. This, however, reminds me of the old psychic gambit "Oh, sure, there are a lot of charlatans out there - you have to really look to find the 'real' ones". Are you asserting that they were all charlatans? Are you asserting that you just have to look harder to find the "real" ones? :rofl:

[Celebration]

116. and sounds like SERIOUS debunking to me

From the website

It is therefore, doubly egregious, indeed, completely irresponsible, for JAMA editors to give space to work that, at the very best, can be described as competent for a 4th grade science project. As shown above, the quality of the research is exemplary of either very bad science or adequate school work. No matter how desperate we in the skeptical community are for a win in our column, JAMA, as a respected member of this community, did us no service by either the publication of a schoolgirl’s project or the subsequent over-promotion of the results and pronouncements about the works’ significance and policy implications.

[varkam]

118. Do you even know what words mean?

I'm starting to think that you do not. Perhaps that explains your confusion with "voodoo" and "ignorant".

Go back and read what conclusions they said that can be drawn from this study, and read what I wrote in my comment. I want you to think for at least twenty minutes about it before posting again.

[Celebration]

120. And what do YOUR words mean--

"Reiki was debunked by a nine year old."

How so?

By a JAMA article that a skeptic group said was bad science, and should not have been published?

You can't just cherry pick one thing from what they say, and say that you agree with it, and ignore the rest.

They said that JAMA did a disservice for publishing this. You say reiki was debunked by a nine year old girl.

Sorry, but any way you slice it, these are not compatible.

[varkam]

121. Both are true.

And I'm not sure that I'm the one cherry-picking, here.

[valerief]

99. Daniel Boone was a woman! It's in a study! It must be real! nt

"What she's showing is an association that defies explanation with what we currently know," said Margaret A. Chesney, a professor of medicine at the University of Maryland and former deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. "She's Daniel Boone."

[hvn_nbr_2]

100. There's something weird about this thread.

The health forum summary page says that this thread has 102 responses, before this one. But when I look at the thread itself, there's no response number greater than 99. Anyone know or have a guess what's up with that?

[Celebration]

102. Yeah, a couple of people crossed the boundaries

There may have been a deleted subthread. That is when the numbers get messed up.

[rosesaylavee]

103. Therapeutic Touch as been practiced for at least the last 30 years.

Originally introduced by Dolores Krieger, RN and Dora Kunz. Lots of studies thru Johns Hopkins in the 80s. This is not a new thing - the article implies this is a new study. Been done before with the same positive results. Nurses all over the country practice this - and most patients have no idea they are.

[Celebration]

104. there have been positive studies

But I don't think there have been any about positive results on growth factors of bone and tendon in petri dishes. Each study is about something different.

[rosesaylavee]

105. Right.

I knew Dora and met Dolores at a seminar. They were adamant it be studied by reputable scientific institutions so that it would be someday considered a mainstream practice. Between the two of them, they reached thousands of medical practioners and interested lay people throughout the 70s and 80s teaching their very simple technique.

[semillama]

106. Wait a minute - you're saying there's a secret society

of magical nurses???

I thought I'd heard everything.

I'll have to ask a nurse I know if she's in the society. Of course, since it's secret, I don't know if I can trust her answer if she says no...

[rosesaylavee]

109. Um. yeah.

Thanks for the kind response.

[cosmik debris]

110. Do they have a secret hand shake

Or just a magic reiki fist bump?

[rosesaylavee]

114. Are you replying in this way

to amuse me or to make me the butt of some joke?

[cosmik debris]

115. If you can't tell,

Then it doesn't matter.

[TZ]

107. And this is different from "God healed me"? how?

Christ on a crutch. Looks like the alties are working hard to justify all that grant money thats being thrown their way instead of legitimate research on things that exist..like cancer.
As someone with an orphan disease it makes me angry to know dollars that could be used to research my legitimate health issues is thrown down the toilet for psuedoscientific bullshit.

[Warpy]

108. Proper touching builds trust

Improper touching will get you a lawsuit.

Other than that, the jury's out on this stuff. Studies have been too small and too biased to take seriously.

[Celebration]

111. best to get permission

Wonder if the tendons in the petri dishes gave permission for the treatment?

Anyway, the tendons, etc. must have really trusted the reiki practitioners in this case.

Note that the author of this study was a skeptic.

[varkam]

119. Well that's it! I'm convinced!

There's obviously nothing else going on here. Seems legit to me!

:eyes:

[varkam]

124. Apparently, the significant results were only seen in one group of bone cells...

and not in a cancerous group of cells. Kind of an unexpected result if you believe in TT. It'll be interesting to see if these results can be replicated at another lab.