Reiki improves heart rate homeostasis in laboratory rats

[Celebration]

Okay, everyone, take a deep breath. Count to four. Then release the breath. Get grounded, and proceed to read:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18435597?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

To determine whether application of Reiki to noise-stressed rats can reduce their heart rates (HRs) and blood pressures. RATIONALE: In a previous study, we showed that exposure of rats to 90 dB white noise for 15 minutes caused their HRs and blood pressures to significantly increase. Reiki has been shown to significantly decrease HR and blood pressure in a small group of healthy human subjects. However, use of humans in such studies has the disadvantage that experimental interpretations are encumbered by the variable of belief or skepticism regarding Reiki. For that reason, noise-stressed rats were used as an animal model to test the efficacy of Reiki in reducing elevated HR and blood pressure. DESIGN: Three unrestrained, male Sprague-Dawley rats implanted with radiotelemetric transducers were exposed daily for 8 days to a 15-minute white noise regimen (90 dB). For the last 5 days, the rats received 15 minutes of Reiki immediately before the noise and during the noise period. The experiment was repeated on the same animals but using sham Reiki. SETTING/LOCATION: The animals were housed in a quiet room in University of Arizona Animal Facility. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean HRs and blood pressure were determined before Reiki/sham Reiki, during Reiki/sham Reiki, and during the noise in each case. RESULTS: Reiki, but not sham Reiki, significantly reduced HR compared to initial values. With Reiki, there was a high correlation between change in HR and initial HR, suggesting a homeostatic effect. Reiki, but not sham Reiki, significantly reduced the rise in HR produced by exposure of the rats to loud noise. Neither Reiki nor sham Reiki significantly affected blood pressure. CONCLUSION: Reiki is effective in modulating HR in stressed and unstressed rats, supporting its use as a stress-reducer in humans.

[Ian David]

1. Will you STOP posting woo-woo crap in the health forum already!

We HAVE an "alternative healing" forum where you can post and where I have been banned for a reason.

Enough with this stupid idiotic crap.

Geesh!

[Celebration]

2. these are scientific studies by PhDs at universities

Published in peer reviewed journals.

[Ian David]

5. You obviously have no regard for either rational thought OR for placing things in proper forums

I'm going to add you to my ignore list, because you're not ready to play with the grown-ups.

[cosmik debris]

28. It was published in

the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

That's not exactly a high standard to meet.

[peace13]

4. Wow....

Have you tried yoga. It opens the mind and expands ones ability to absorb information that may be foreign to your set way of thinking. Peace and love, Kim

[KittyWampus]

6. You need an intervention.

[Orrex]

3. What is "sham Reiki?"

And how is it distinguished from "real" Reiki?

[Celebration]

7. we need the full study instead of a summary n/t

[Orrex]

11. That's exactly correct

Also, since we're attempting to answer the very basic question of whether Reiki works at all, it's hard to imagine how they could use "sham Reiki" as a control when, so far, "real" Reiki really is indistinguishable from "sham" Reiki.

Here's a proposal for an analogous experiment: Let's test for the existence of ghosts by observing the behavior of subjects as they react to people who have seen ghosts. As a control, we'll have a group of "sham ghost-witnesses" who have been trained to give convincing performances. We'll test to see if the experimental subjects react differently to "sham" ghost witnesses versus "real" ghost witnesses.

See the problem? The underlying principal hasn't been shown to exist at all, so we can hardly propose a red herring "sham" to test for it. The same is true for this Reiki experiment; it has to assume outright that Reiki works, or else it couldn't devise "sham" Reiki.

As you say, we need the full study. But from the methodology described in the summary, the experiment is fatally flawed from the outset.

[Celebration]

14. Below I stated what I would use for experimental and control

But I have no idea if they did that.

[Orrex]

17. I saw that after I posted

But even so, the clockwise/counter-clockwise thing assumes that Reiki works via the mechanism ascribed to it by its prononents.

The experiment as summarized is at least two steps from being valid; it may be further removed, but we can't know that until we read the study.

[Celebration]

22. well, reiki is much more than just clockwise and counterclockwise

That just seems like the easiest way to distinguish the two.

I'm not exactly sure why rats need shams anyway, but, whatever.

[Orrex]

23. In the interest of honesty and disclosure...

I need to restate that I think Reiki (and its sibling "energy therapies") are absolute nonsense. For purposes of this thread I'm trying to focus simply on the methodology and the assumptions of the experiment described in the article, rather than my own views.

Still, it would be dishonest for me to pretend that I really thought that there might be something to this.

[varkam]

26. See my post below for the methodology. eom

[conscious evolution]

82. Ever heard the term placebo?

That is what 'sham' reiki is.

[KittyWampus]

8. Intention, most likely.

[BlooInBloo]

9. The shorter name is just "reiki".

[Celebration]

10. guessing, but

I think if I were designing the study, the regular reiki would have a lot of clockwise motions over the rats, and the sham reiki would use a lot of counterclockwise motions over the rats.

Good massage schools ALWAYS tell the massage therapists to work clockwise on the body, and never counterclockwise. I'm pretty sure that these principles are also used in the martial arts for people to "strengthen" their own bodies, while weakening their opponent.

But whether this was used in the study in question, I have no idea.

[DesertFlower]

12. i learned reiki about 25 years ago.

it's not massage. it's a laying on of hands on different areas of the body. i haven't done it in years. i would have to consult my old books on the exact locations.

i did do an experiment once. a co-worker kept saying that she hated her daughter-in-law. i put my hands on the heart position and then told her to say it. she couldn't.

[Celebration]

13. oh that is cool

I know, I gave that massage example just to show that licensed massage therapists incorporate reiki techniques. They are well known in the massage community. And massage continuing education usually count reiki classes.

[DesertFlower]

19. that's great.

i took a basic course in shiatsu too.

isn't there something called "therapuetic touch"? my friend took a course in that. there was talk back then about nurses using it.

[Celebration]

21. yes

A lot of nurses use therapeutic touch. It is similar to reiki.

[chicagomd]

30. No it is not.

Therapeutic touch involes...wait for it...touch.

Reiki involves manipulated "energy flow" above the body with NO PHYSICIAL CONTACT. Neither is it therapeutic, which is the point of the discussion at hand.

[Celebration]

42. Wrong

Some reiki is above the body and some is touch.

[valerief]

58. There's no difference between sham Reiki and Reiki. nt

[Orrex]

73. I thought it was when you practiced energy healing on a pillow cover

And it's about time, too. Mine could use a good dose of chi.

[valerief]

15. What does voodoo have to do with health? nt

[Celebration]

16. I don't know

You will need to start a new topic for that one.

[Orrex]

18. Take it easy on valerief

She has trouble with her appendix.

:evilgrin:

[valerief]

59. Oy, and my colon! Is there a doctor in house? Buzz off, you silly Reiki charlatan! nt

[DesertFlower]

20. don't knock things that you

don't understand.

[varkam]

24. So 'splain it to us. eom

[DesertFlower]

35. here's a link.

http://www.reiki-for-holistic-health.com/

[varkam]

36. I understand how reiki is purported to work.

But I want you to explain how it actually does work within the context of their being an abundance of negative evidence for it (the 9 year old that debunked it notwithstanding).

[DesertFlower]

37. i can only vouch for my

personal experience using it. i will tell you that it does not work for everything. if it did, we wouldn't have any sick people.

i used it on myself to heal a certain area of my body and it did not work. that doesn't mean that i'm going to dismiss it. i like to keep an open mind about things.

[varkam]

38. So then do you agree that it might be placebo...

I mean, open mind and all.

[DesertFlower]

39. it's possible, but i don't think rats

understand placebo.




on edit: the OP posted the thread for informational purposes. you are free to do whatever you want with it.

[varkam]

40. So then why call another poster ignorant for claiming something that you agree is possible?

Oh, and check below for why this study doesn't mean a whole lot.

[DesertFlower]

48. i didn't call anyone ignorant.

i said "don't knock things that you don't understand".

this is the last i have to say on this subject.

[varkam]

50. Here's the definition of ignorant:

1 a: destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors> (emphasis added)

You're parsing semantics. So, again, I ask why did you call another poster ignorant concerning something that you agree could be possible?

[Celebration]

55. let's see

She said "Don't knock things that you don't understand."

I would clearly agree that V. does not understand reiki, as demonstrated by this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x38696#38831

and other posts. Her insistence that reiki involves "rubbing" when it doesn't, even when corrected, shows that she does not understand the process.

Still, S. did not call her "ignorant." That is because people often associate that word with the part of the definition that you quoted-- "resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence ." People tend to associate ignorance with lack of intelligence in general, rightly or wrongly. I try to use that term with Freepers only. S. probably does the same.

There are a few people here who try to keep the discussion civil, and calling someone ignorant just because they lack knowledge of a subject is not the appropriate way to do that. So, I would suggest that you cease trying to put words in people's mouths.

[varkam]

62. I'm sorry, but ignorant means what it means.

I first accused the individual of calling the poster "stupid" but then I backed up because stupid means lacking in ability, whereas ignorance just means lacking in information. Note that you bolded the wrong half of that definition.

And you are free to use the term however you would like, but don't tell me that my usage is incorrect.

Moreover, the post that valerie wrote had nothing to do with "rubbing", but merely caleld reiki "voodoo" - meaning that it's BS (oh, and I'm talking about the post that kicked off this ST - not any other post in other threads).

There are a few people here who try to keep the discussion civil, and calling someone ignorant just because they lack knowledge of a subject is not the appropriate way to do that. So, I would suggest that you cease trying to put words in people's mouths.

Let's see, the other poster said that valierie does not understand reiki. Would you say that a lack of understanding is equivalent to a lack of knowledge on a subject matter? I would of said "...of lacking knowledge..." but my subject line was running out of space. Moreover, I meant no injury by my use of the term. I don't view ignorant as a pejorative, but then again I know what the word means.

You are, however, free to alert on it if you feel it is inappropriate.

[Celebration]

67. any time you use a loaded word

like "ignorance" when quoting another person, when that person did not use that word, is mis-characterizing, clear and simple. It is nothing to do an alert about, but I won't just let it pass. Ignorance as a word has a much more negative connotation than "lack of knowledge." It could be that you use the words synonymously, but most people don't. This is because of the "lack of intelligence" part of the definition.

She did say that she lacked knowledge--this could either be due to V. continually referring to reiki as rubbing in another thread, or to her calling it voodoo. Voodoo is voodoo and reiki is reiki. I know very little about voodoo, but enough about it to know that it is not reiki. I would say that anyone that infers that they are the same has a great lack of knowledge. I wouldn't call V. ignorant because it is possible that V. is intelligent. If you don't make that distinction, then fine, but I would be very careful about putting (loaded) words into other people's mouths.

[varkam]

68. I disagree that it is a loaded term.

People may not like to be ignorant, much less to be called so, but that doesn't mean that it is loaded. There's another term that much more clearly gets across the point that one is lacking in ability - stupid. Note that the vast majority of the definition of intelligence, indeed two and a half of the definitions, are purely focused on knowledge, not on ability.

Let's look at how the term is used, shall we? It makes sense for me to say that I am ignorant of astrophysics, but not for me to say that I am stupid of astrophysics.

Don't be disingenuous (another "loaded" word) - she was using voodoo as a metaphor. I sincerely doubt that she was asserting that reiki was traditionally part of a Haitian mystical tradition but rather that reiki is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo nonsense. This can further be inferred from her other posts on the subject, as nowhere does a Haitian mystical tradition come up.

[Celebration]

69. using voodoo as a metaphor makes no sense

It has a very specific definition. You are so much into definitions

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voodoo

Main Entry: 1voo·doo
Pronunciation: \ˈvü-(ˌ)dü\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural voodoos
Etymology: Louisiana Creole voudou, probably from Ewe vódũ tutelary deity
Date: 1850
1also vo·dou \vō-ˈdü\ : a religion that is derived from African polytheism and ancestor worship and is practiced chiefly in Haiti
2 a: a person who deals in spells and necromancy b (1): a sorcerer's spell : hex (2): a hexed object

It kind of reminds me of someone comparing Obama to Paris Hilton--you know, two newsmakers!

[varkam]

70. Oh, I love definitions.

Again, with the disengenuousness.

From The Free Online Dictionary

n. pl. voo·doos
1. A religion practiced chiefly in Caribbean countries, especially Haiti, syncretized from Roman Catholic ritual elements and the animism and magic of slaves from West Africa, in which a supreme God rules a large pantheon of local and tutelary deities, deified ancestors, and saints, who communicate with believers in dreams, trances, and ritual possessions. Also called vodoun.
2. A charm, , spell, or curse holding magic power for adherents of voodoo.
3. A practitioner, priest, or priestess of voodoo.
4. Deceptive or delusive nonsense.
tr.v. voo·dooed, voo·doo·ing, voo·doos
To place under the influence of a spell or curse; bewitch.
adj.
1. Of or relating to the beliefs or practices of voodoo.
2. Based on unrealistic or delusive assumptions: voodoo economics.

Here's the wiki on voodoo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo

Make sure that you scroll down to the section headed: Magical Thinking

You've heard of the term voodoo economics, haven't you? Do you think that it refers to the system of trade with respect to a Haitian mystical tradition?

[Celebration]

71. not a preferred definition and not in Webster's

But if V. was attempting to equate reiki with deceptive or delusive nonsense, she is doing it from a knowledge base that is completely lacking--so you can call it "ignorant" if you want. She doesn't even know enough about reiki to know that it doesn't involve rubbing.

[varkam]

74. So you're saying that "voodoo economics" makes no sense?

You're saying that voodoo can have no other usage aside from describing a Haitian mystical tradition? Why, because Webster's doesn't say it is so - meanwhile completely ignoring the fact that it has been used with other meanings in mind and that is how valerie meant it, especially given her other posts referring to Reiki practitioners as charlatans?

I can't believe I'm still discussing this with you, but I suppose it is my own fault for continuing to respond.

[Celebration]

75. don't like supply side economics

But calling it voodoo economics doesn't sound like an appropriate term. It has no relationship to voodoo.

But that, of course, wasn't my main point, which you ignored. V. has a complete lack of knowledge about reiki, as demonstrated by her calling it rubbing, when no rubbing is involved. Yet she was willing to use the fourth definition of voodoo to describe it (according to you). Isn't this your definition of ignorance? V. doesn't even know what reiki is, yet is willing to characterize and define it. So, according to what you have been saying here, she is "ignorant." I would just say she has a lack of knowledge.

[varkam]

83. This has gone from mildly silly to incredibly stupid.

And I'm going to stop now.

[trotsky]

76. You are picking the noun definition, when varkam used the adjective.

From your preferred dictionary, then:

Main Entry: voodoo
Function: adjective
Date: 1880

1 : of, relating to, or practicing voodoo (voodoo rituals) 2 : based on highly improbable suppositions : extremely implausible or unrealistic (voodoo economics)

[Celebration]

79. I'll give you this

The adjective definition actually does make more sense than using it along this line as a noun, as V. did, although it is still not my preference. Anyway, the reason is that voodoo as a noun has a very particular meaning. Changing it to mean something else (as a noun) completely different *really* does not make sense.

As a new word meaning for an adjective, coined by Poppy Bush, as I remember, at least twists it into an adjective, which is different from using it as a noun, obviously. I try to stay away from words coined by Republicans, though. That practice has served me well.

[trotsky]

80. You're shifting into a meaningless semantics argument

because you've lost the main one.

Besides, if you look at the definition I posted, "voodoo" as an adjective dates to 1880. It was undoubtedly applied to questionable things well before George Herbie Bush used it with "economics," best illustrated by the fact that people at the time knew what he meant.

[Celebration]

81. the main one

The main one actually has to do with whether V. is uneducated about reiki, and/or ignorant. I say that V. is uneducated, because she keeps saying it is about rubbing when it is not.

The semantics stuff is a distraction, I agree.

[Celebration]

43. Debunking the nine year old girl

By a skeptical group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x38696#38895

I find it pretty amusing that skeptics immediately dismiss studies by credentialed PhDs, based on a kid's science fair experiment. But, whatever.

[varkam]

44. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Unlike much of the woo out there.

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.

That's from your link. That's also generally what scientific conclusions are supposed to be, as it is logically impossible to prove a negative (i.e. it is impossible to prove that HEF does not exist). But the Rosa study isn't the only reason why many people are skeptical of TT. Indeed, the abundance of negative research and the lack of positive research on the subject are the real reasons. In the end, one study doesn't mean a whole lot when there is a whole field of literature out there.

Oh, and I'm surprised you haven't commented on the methodology used for the study at hand.

[Celebration]

45. so was this in a peer reviewed journal

Honestly, Orac is so convoluted in his attack, it is hard to follow what he is saying. I did note that he attacked something because of the variability of the results. However, as you know, the variability is considered, as is the size of the study, when one determines statistical significance. It is pretty hard to attack a study based on its size or variability. A p value of .05, for instance, means exactly the same thing for a small study as for a large study--there is only a 5% chance that the results in the control group and in the experimental group differ due to chance.

So, his whole thing didn't make sense to me. But he had the whole study in front of him. I don't.

[varkam]

46. What?

A p value of .05, for instance, means exactly the same thing for a small study as for a large study--there is only a 5% chance that the results in the control group and in the experimental group differ due to chance.

Wow, really? Lower sample sizes equal less statistical power and greater chance for things like sampling error. In layman's terms, it is much easier to achieve statistical significance with smaller samples - especially if you are prone to playing fast and loose with statistics (as these authors have apparently done with choosing an inappropriate metric by which to report the correlation). The small sample size, however, was only one problem in the study:

The glaring flaw in this experimental methodology should be obvious. For the first treatment round, all three pairs of rats got reiki and all three supposedly showed effects. After the passage of some time, the three pairs of rats were then subjected to the same experiment, except with sham reiki practitioners. Of course, rats react to the presence of humans, and if the reiki masters were sufficiently soothing to the rats, that could have had an effect. Also, rats react differently to people depending upon if they've become acclimated to them through repeated contact or not. It wasn't stated whether the rats were acclimated to the reiki masters or not. Most importantly, though, there's no way of telling whether this is a period effect, or not. The time passage could be even long enough for seasonal effects. Who knows? A better experimental methodology would have been done to test two groups, reiki and sham, in parallel or to a two-period crossover design. As described, this study is well nigh uninterpretable.

Another strange aspect of this paper is in Figure 2, which shows the pulse rate data for one rat in response to reiki on five different days, I see extreme variability. On most days, the decrease in heartrate was in the 1.5% to 5% range, and on only one day was it 33%. Moreover, the data is presented in a most unconventional day. After all, if there were only three rats, there's no reason before-and-after data can't be presented for them all, but that's not the way it was presented. Instead, the authors presented linear regression of initial heartrate versus decrease in heartrate, trying to argue that the higher the initial heartrate, the more the effect of reiki. This is abuse of statistics, pure and simple. There is no reason to assume a linear for decrease in heartrate as a function of initial resting heartrate. Also, a correlation coefficient of -0.68 is reported. Odd that the r2, the more appropriate metric, wasn't reported. It would have been 0.46, not nearly as impressive.

As a note and without getting too technical, extreme variability in the dependent variable usually means bad things, like error. Back to Orac:

Of course, the worst flaw of all is the number of experimental animals used. Getting interpretable results from any animal study, particularly rat studies, with N=3 with each animal serving as its own control rather than a parallel control group is also pretty close to impossible unless the treatment effect under study is really, really strong. I guess that reiki's so strong that it don't need no stinkin' control group, either. Another aspect of this experiment is that there's no objective way to way to detect the difference between "real" reiki and sham reiki. What if one of the reiki master's magic wasn't working one day or one of the "sham" practitioners had somehow figured out how to administer a little bit of reiki? There'd be no way to tell. Also, those taking the measurements of heartrate and blood pressure were not blinded to when the rats were receiving reiki or sham reiki, another source of potential bias.

I bolded and underlined the bits that are important. Hopefully that will make it easier for you to "follow".

In sum, note that the small sample size in and of itself was only one major flaw with the study. In addition, you do not have a control group, the correct stats are not reported, the design of the study is prone to period effects, et cetera.

And yes, this was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Though, after examining this study, I'm not exactly sure how stringent their standards are.

[Celebration]

47. Is the whole study online somewhere?

I think I would have to read it to follow his arguments. Sorry.

I would prefer studies on people rather than rats. I would maybe just use talk therapy with a counselor as a control group.

Do you disagree with this?

"A p value of .05, for instance, means exactly the same thing for a small study as for a large study--there is only a 5% chance that the results in the control group and in the experimental group differ due to chance."

That is actually the definition. In a small study, it takes a really big difference in the control and experimental group to reach statistical significance.

That is why the SSRI studies were just so HUGE. They had to be, because of the large placebo effect, and the relatively small effect of the SSRIs. And the pharma companies could afford big studies.

Read this carefully-

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=137461

The difference between two groups in a study will usually be explored in terms of an estimate of effect, appropriate confidence interval and P value. The confidence interval indicates the likely range of values for the true effect in the population, while the P value determines how likely it is that the observed effect in the sample is due to chance. A related quantity is the statistical power of the study. Put simply, this is the probability of correctly identifying a difference between the two groups in the study sample when one genuinely exists in the populations from which the samples were drawn.

The ideal study for the researcher is one in which the power is high. This means that the study has a high chance of detecting a difference between groups if one exists; consequently, if the study demonstrates no difference between groups the researcher can be reasonably confident in concluding that none exists in reality. The power of a study depends on several factors (see below), but as a general rule higher power is achieved by increasing the sample size.

It is important to be aware of this because all too often studies are reported that are simply too small to have adequate power to detect the hypothesized effect. In other words, even when a difference exists in reality it may be that too few study subjects have been recruited. The result of this is that P values are higher and confidence intervals wider than would be the case in a larger study, and the erroneous conclusion may be drawn that there is no difference between the groups. This phenomenon is well summed up in the phrase, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. In other words, an apparently null result that shows no difference between groups may simply be due to lack of statistical power, making it extremely unlikely that a true difference will be correctly identified.

So, the problem with small sample sizes is that there is a bigger possibility that no significant effect will be shown, when indeed there IS an effect, and the size of the study is so small that the p value is high. When the "power" of a study is smaller (sample size smaller), it is *harder* to get statistical significance.

Since this is a case when a small sample size *did* show significance, I don't really get Orac's argument on this.

On the other hand, if it was Prozac versus placebo, a small sample size would probably not have shown a significant difference. Then the argument could be made that the study was too small to show significance.......(and that argument would be correct).

[varkam]

49. You hear that sound?

That wooshing sound right above your head?

The article you quoted from is describing a situation where the p values are not significant, and what the appropriate conclusions are to draw from that situation (failure to reject the null hypothesis). In this study, the p values were significant. IOW, these are two completely different situations, and nothing that you have posted either contradicted what I wrote, or supported what you wrote.

To rephrase, what that is talking about is a situation where no significant effect is obtained in a study with a small N. That does not mean that there is not an effect, but that the study might not of been powerful enough to detect it. What that is not saying is that it is harder to obtain significant values with smaller populations. Yeesh.

So, the problem with small sample sizes is that there is a bigger possibility that no significant effect will be shown, when indeed there IS an effect, and the size of the study is so small that the p value is high. When the "power" of a study is smaller (sample size smaller), it is *harder* to get statistical significance.

No. You have completely botched your reading assignment.

Since this is a case when a small sample size *did* show significance, I don't really get Orac's argument on this.

I'm guessing that's because you don't really understand, but that's okay.

On the other hand, if it was Prozac versus placebo, a small sample size would probably not have shown a significant difference. Then the argument could be made that the study was too small to show significance.......(and that argument would be correct).

Yes, but again, that's the flip side of the coin - it doesn't have any bearing on this situation.

As I said, less power is bad. That, however, is just one of the little things that creep into your research if you have a small N, others being things like sampling error.

[Celebration]

51. you didn't answer my question

Do you disagree with this?

"A p value of .05, for instance, means exactly the same thing for a small study as for a large study--there is only a 5% chance that the results in the control group and in the experimental group differ due to chance."

Whether a study has one million in the sample, or ten, the p value of .05 means exactly the same thing.

Then look at it this way--

The SSRI studies had to be huge because of their relatively small effect. To show a p value of say, something like .05 or .03 they made sure they had large studies. Otherwise= no significance.

This study showed significance WITHOUT having to have a huge study.
The p value takes into account the sample size.

Having said that, it is always best to have a big sample, because you can get a better idea of how effective something is. That is true. With a small sample size there can be more variability. Yet, that is taken into account for the p value. And the p value is defined as the probability that the control and experimental groups difference was due to chance.

[varkam]

61. I thought it was obvious.

Do you disagree with this?

YES! It's flat wrong.

Whether a study has one million in the sample, or ten, the p value of .05 means exactly the same thing.

Please, go back and re-read what I wrote about this if you're actually interested in learning something. If you do not understand, please let me know and I will try to explain it another way.

The SSRI studies had to be huge because of their relatively small effect. To show a p value of say, something like .05 or .03 they made sure they had large studies. Otherwise= no significance.

Actually, most early phase FDA trials are not huge. In addition, trials that do include a large number of participants are not limited to SSRIs. Indeed, any medicine looking for FDA approval needs to undergo such trials.

This study showed significance WITHOUT having to have a huge study.
The p value takes into account the sample size.

But you also have to look at the variability. In this study, a large variability, even among one subject (given that the N is so small) could produce significant results (Type 1 error). If you have a smaller sample, you tend to get get more error in the measurement. More error means a greater likelihood of either a false negative or a false positive.

In addition to p values, you have to take into account the design and methodology of the study - including sample size. For instance, in this study it seems as if there was a good amount of variability in the DV, which is one indication of a possible type I error when there are significant results.

Having said that, it is always best to have a big sample, because you can get a better idea of how effective something is. That is true. With a small sample size there can be more variability. Yet, that is taken into account for the p value. And the p value is defined as the probability that the control and experimental groups difference was due to chance.

No it isn't. All a p value is is a comparison of experimental means against a control or a population - it is not an all-seeing metric of how well a study has been run. In this study, the control and the experimental group were one in the same - so it was a before and after comparison (which has problems in and of itself). If you have one subject that, due to something unique to that subject, exhibits extreme variability, could produce significant results while not taking into account sampling error. That type of error is better controlled in larger studies because you have more individuals, so variability among a handful of subjects would not have much of an effect on the bottom line.

Of course, like I said, sampling size is only one consideration that needs to be made when interpreting significance. You also need to look at the design of the study, the methodology, and the statistical methods that were used to arrive at that conclusion. Another example, in this study they used a simple regression equation instead of r2 to report their results, even despite the fact that r2 would of been appropriate for the design. Why? Because their method reported a larger result. If they would've gone with r2, I wonder if the p value would've even been significant.

[Celebration]

65. p value also takes into account the variability

Yes there are methodologies that are important in studies, other than the p value. But a p value in a small study means exactly the same thing as a p value in a large study. And a p value takes into account both size of the sample and the variability.

Yes, if there is one strange subject in the sample, an outlier, then that will affect the results of a small study more--in either direction. I agree with that. This was not posted to settle any matter for once and for all. Nor did I ever claim that, as you did with that pretty dumb nine year old's study, debunked by a skeptic group.

I also think reiki studies should be done on humans rather than rats. But this is an interesting study in any case.

[varkam]

66. Holy Hell!

Yes, if there is one strange subject in the sample, an outlier, then that will affect the results of a small study more--in either direction. I agree with that.

I'm...I'm...well I'm speechless. You agree with something that I wrote? Surely I must be dreaming.

Note, though, that the p value doesn't take into account variability contrary to your repeated assertions that it does, or rather extreme variability among a handful of participants in a study with a small n. As I said, it is not an all-seeing metric.

And as for the "dumb" nine year old's study, check the other thread to see what I wrote.

[cosmik debris]

52. You over looked a couple of major problems

You said "the problem with small sample sizes is that there is a bigger possibility that no significant effect will be shown" and that may be true.

But the real problem with small sample size is that it is impossible to tell the difference between normal variation and experimental variation. So assuming that the variation is experimental is not a valid conclusion.

It is also impossible to pick out statistical out-liers or "sports". When you can't determine the normal range of responses, you can't conclude that your test subjects were responding outside that range.

There are other problems with a sample size of 3, but that's enough to blow that reiki theory right out of the water.

[Celebration]

53. the variation

It *isn't* "assuming" that the variation is experimental. Anything with a p value is comparing the normal distributions of the control group with the normal distributions of the experimental group. The variation within each group is assumed to be NORMAL distribution. It is only when comparing the two groups that the notion that there is an experimental effect is tested.

I would agree with you, though, that this experiment should be repeated with a larger sample size, and also something with humans would be best!!

One more thing worth noting is that the level of confidence accepted has very much to do with the risk of the experiment.

As an example, if there was a five percent possibility that you would hit an oncoming car when you passed the car in front of you, you would be a complete fool to take that risk. Yet this same p value is used to show "confidence" in a study.

Because using reiki is not at all risky, it certainly would make sense to accept a lower level of confidence that it works. In fact, some people might even say to themselves-- "I don't really believe that it works, but my next door neighbor tried it, and recommends it. I think I will give it a go just to see if it helps." That statement makes total sense. On the other hand, when we are thinking about taking pharmaceutical drugs, which may have a good deal of risk associated with them, the various statistics are much more important.

[cosmik debris]

54. Nonsense

You are desperately trying to justify the statistical analysis of a project that couldn't win second place in a High School Science Fair.

Your efforts are in vain.

[Celebration]

56. Respectfully, I disagree

There are shortcomings to most studies, and I never claimed this one was perfect.

However, when people talk about the sample size, it is important to remember that a study with a small sample size has a very big hurdle--that hurdle is actually showing a significant distinction between the groups, and this one did that.

[varkam]

63. You're not reading, are you?

So much for having an open mind.

[cosmik debris]

77. It is Sooooo easy

to design an experiment to test any reiki hypothesis. But for some reason the reiki proponents never seem to get over that first hurdle.

Apparently their background in science is so weak that they can't even design an irrefutable, reproducible experiment that would prove their theory.

If they really need help, perhaps they should ask for it. I'm sure there are a lot of real scientists who would be glad to design an experiment for them.

[trotsky]

78. It should be, but...

Those mean old skeptical scientists would contaminate the experiment with their skepticism, and it would fail. That is of course the reason why they don't ask for help, DUH!

[Orrex]

72. That's an ad hominem, by the way

Whether or not she's correct is independent of her age, though you seem--in that post--to hold it as relevant, and in fact you subordinate her correctness to her age.

Varkam also neatly demonstrated why the skeptics that you think are debunking her aren't debunking her as much as you think.

[TZ]

60. Well considering how much scientific inaccuracies

Get posted in here about things like vaccines and how western meds actually work..thats a pretty ballsy statement there. Plenty of people do that ALL THE TIME HERE.

[varkam]

25. I know how you love Orac...

but he's got the poop on the methodology: Link

Turns out that there are a number of problems with this study.

[Orrex]

27. With a name that sounds like that, you know he's got to be brilliant

:evilgrin:

[salvorhardin]

29. I can't wait for the study where they train rats to do sham reiki on humans

Of course, maybe they already have. I mean, how would we know?

[UndertheOcean]

32. haha , true

[cosmik debris]

33. I trained Santa Claus to do reiki on me

I only get one treatment a year, but that's all it takes.

[Orrex]

34. Does it work if you're naughty?

Or only if you're nice?

[UndertheOcean]

31. I mean its good to have an open mind , but not so open your brain falls

right off your skull.

[valerief]

41. Rats do Reiki? Now that's just crazy. As crazy as people doing it. nt

[TZ]

57. Yes rats are JUST LIKE HUMANS

And get stressed by THE EXACT SAME THINGS...I know I get stressed if I don't get my food pellets on time!
:rofl:

Seriously, I can't believe anybody gets funding for this pseudoscientific shit when there are so many real problems to be researched.
Whats next funding studies to see what type of crystal is best for antibody production?
:crazy:

Wait here we go...Laboratory for the Advances in Consciousness and Health, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0068, USA.
The sun has fried someones neurons it seems...and people wonder why many don't take psychology seriously..its cause of this tripe.

[dropkickpa]

64. There's no mention in the full paper

of precautions they took to avoid variables. Such as, scents accounted for and the same between all people involved in manipulation of the rats (perfumes, deodorants, soaps, shampoos, lotions, laundry detergent, fabric softner, etc, rats sense of smell is their strongest sense and they are very sensitive to changes in their scent environment).

No mention of the fact that, unlike their earlier acclimation control days, instead of getting 15 minutes rest after telemetry activation *immediately* followed by 15 minutes white noise, the rats in the reiki and fake reiki portion got 15 minutes of rest after telemetry activation followed at least 30 minutes of "reiki" THEN they were subjected to the white noise. Big ass variable right there, 15 minutes to recover from the stress of handling compared to 45 minutes. Did none of the geniuses in this poorly done study account for the fact that the stress reduction period after telemetry activation was more than 2x as long, allowing them to become more calm? ALL animals become stressed by restraint (granted, the restraint for the telemetry activation is about 15 seconds, but it is still pretty damn stressful). They don't show us the data on the extended unmanipulated period and it's difference from the rats that only got the 15 minute rest period.

And they used just 3 rats.

I could spend hours picking apart their methodology and the glaring omissions (rather than the quick 15 minutes I spent), but, seeing as this was submitted and accepted by a not so reliable journal, I can see how they'd be willing to overlook the MANY glaring deficiencies in both procedure and data presentation.


entire study can be read here - http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/acm.2007.0753