Cancer Patients, Survivors Find Relief Through Ancient Practice

[Celebration]

http://www.nbc4.com/health/8694928/detail.html

Reiki is meant to reduce stress and promote healing, and Washington Hospital Center now offers it to some patients.

"I'm putting the hands where they need to be, making the connection -- the energetic connection -- then letting the energy flow through me to the patient," said practitioner Landis Vance.

snip..............

As part of a pilot program, Washington Hospital Center evaluated the effects of Reiki on cancer patients to see if it could reduce tension and stress, fatigue, pain, and anxiety.

"Everything was a tremendous, positive effect, statistically significant on all four dimensions," said Miriam Ratner, who heads the pilot program. "All of these things were reduced."

[MuseRider]

1. When my brother was dying

and I was totally stressed, deeply depressed and so very tired my friend would come and give me Reiki treatments. It was wonderful as he is. We were getting ready to do one on my brother but instead he ended up back in the ICU so we were never able to do it. Still, it helped me more than I can say. It got me through that long month and a half.

I think it would be wonderful for someone trying to get through that kind of treatment. It is good to know it is being used.

[catabryna]

2. When my husband was undergoing his stem cell transplant...

a couple of years ago for Hodgkin's Disease (he later died from cancer treatment complications) a Reiki practitioner came to the hospital in San Antonio a few times a week and my husband, who was definitely a major natural skeptic by nature, decided to give it a shot, in his words, "just for the heck of it".

He told me afterward that it was such an odd experience in that he could physically "feel" something even though there was no actual touching. He really enjoyed it and said that he did feel better afterward. I can't explain it; and, if he were here, he probably wouldn't be able to explain it either. But, he said the practice had a very positive mental and physical impact on him.

[Orrex]

5. I'm very sorry for your loss, catabryna

:hug:

Although Reiki (like its sibling energy therapies) has never been demonstrated in a laboratory setting, I'm pleased that your husband enjoyed some relief from his suffering.

But the danger of powerful personal testimony like this is that someone may mistake your husband's experience for actual, empirical validation of the practice. From there, it's a simple mental step to go from "makes a cancer patient feel better" to "cures cancer," and that's the point at which people may forego actual treatment in favor of a new age fad.

But again, I'm sorry for your loss.

[catabryna]

6. You won't get any argument from me...

I certainly don't want anyone to take my husband's experience as a cure-all. It definitely didn't take his cancer away. He did die, afterall. My only point was that, for whatever reason, it made him feel better and, as we all know, mental well-being is an important component of a person's overall health.

I do, however, understand your concerns which I why I made sure that I made mention of "subliminal mental gymnastic exercise" in another post further down.

Thank you for your condolences. :hug:

[Orrex]

7. Oops! Sorry--I should have read that one before posting!

I do, however, understand your concerns which I why I made sure that I made mention of "subliminal mental gymnastic exercise" in another post further down.

That's a point worth mentioning again and again!

[catabryna]

8. Tis quite alright :o) (n/t)

[trotsky]

3. Ah, the power of placebo. n/t

[catabryna]

4. Placebo or no...

if it made my husband feel better, I'll take it for the subliminal mental gymnastic exercise it might be.

[trotsky]

9. I agree. But unfortunately that means this is ripe for abuse.

And exploitation by quacks.

[BuddhaGirl]

10. well, aren't you Mr. Sunshine!

why take a report on a positive experience with Reiki and degrade it down to something that is "ripe for abuse and exploitation for quacks?"

Is there not abuse in allopathic medicine? Definitely. Are there not quacks in allopathic medicine? Most definitely. And one of them killed my father-in-law with chemo, which he was kept on until the bitter end.

I only wish we had known about Reiki or some other complementary treatment back then...anything that might have helped alleviate some of his agony.

[trotsky]

11. Yeah, it sucks being a realist. So sorry. n/t

[Orrex]

19. Surely you realize that your argument is flawed?

Is there not abuse in allopathic medicine? Definitely. Are there not quacks in allopathic medicine? Most definitely.

Let's talk brass tacks here.

How many people are demonstrably helped by "allopathic" medicine each year? Before you answer, recognize that we must include every dose of aspirin, every broken finger that gets a splint, and every vaccination that prevents a disease. Examples number well into the billions annually.

How many people are demonstrably helped by "homeopathic" treatments each year? Before you answer, recognize that we must exclude allegations of "balance" "energy" and the like (meaning that reiki, traditional acupuncture, and therapeutic touch are off-limits). Recognize as well that "detoxification" treatments have not been scientifically demonstrated to yield the benefits ascribed to them, so they're off-limits, too. And recognize also that "alternative" treatments given alongside actual treatments must be excluded unless those "alternative" treatments yield a demonstrable benefit clearly in excess of the actual treatment's effects. Finally, we must exclude the over-praised "placebo effect" from this list because it is an element of "allopathic" medicine. Since the "alternative" "medicine" industry is not subject to regulation, we conveniently can't document the numbers, now can we? But suffice it to say that, since "alternative" medicine has performed little better than the aforementioned placebo effect, the annual number of people demonstrably benefiting (beyond a vague "positive feeling" or somesuch) from "alternative" medicine numbers somewhere close to zero.

Go ahead and crunch those numbers, and then tell me again about the equivalency of "abuse" and "quackery" in "allopathic" medicine versus "alternative" treatments. For the record, the methodology for the tallying of the mythical 700,000 annual iatragenic deaths has been thoroughly debunked here in this very forum, so (absent new, corroborating evidence) let's leave those out, shall we?

I will likely be assailed for my dim assessment of "alternative" medicine. To which I say "refute me." Personal testimony is not sufficient in the absence of empirical data. Post a link to the study that unequivocally supports the claims of alternative treatments in a way that can't be ascribed to actual "allopathic" medicine, and then we'll talk. "Alternative" medicine is snake-oil until proven otherwise.

[BuddhaGirl]

21. I am not saying there aren't quacks in alternative medicine

and there are quacks everywhere.

"Alternative medicine is snake-oil until proven otherwise." I am not going to post links to studies showing the efficacy of alternative medicine - it's futile because others have done it and you are not convinced so what is the point?

The fact is, alternative medicine works for many, including me. I will continue to use it, do my own research, and take control of my health, just as you are free to use allopathic medicine because it works for you :-)

[Warpy]

12. Trotsky, placebo IS powerful

for the vast majority of people out there, so if they want to pay for Reiki or massage or megavitamins or any of the other benign complimentary treatments out there, I'm all for it. Anything that can relax a patient and make him feel better will help the conventional therapy along.

The only caveat is when a practitioner tells you to stop conventional treatment. That's a red flag and you need to run like hell.

[trotsky]

13. Of course!

Just dangerous in the hands of the unscrupulous, that's all. I really don't know how you manage placebo without opening it up to abuse.

[Warpy]

15. First, make sure it stays both unethical and illegal for any health

care professional in allopathic medicine to use them. That's the way it is now and that's the way it should stay.

However, there's a line between giving a patient a sugar pill and telling him it's going to relieve his pain or cure his impotence and suggesting he try massage to help him feel better during treatment.

[Orrex]

14. Another caveat

If a person finds Reiki or therapeutic touch or megavitamins or whatever very helpful, that person may recommend that treatment to another person, who may in turn pursue that hocus pocus to the exclusion of real treatment. In recent months I've seen this happen repeatedly even among my limited circle of interaction.

It usually takes this form:

Person-A has back pain and visits a doctor who prescribes some kind of empirically tested medication to help relax Person-A's spasming lower back muscles. Person-A also buys a magnetic bracelet whose hawkers claim it to have pain-relieving powers. Person-A gets better and concludes that the bracelet was instrumental in the recovery.

Person-B comments aloud that his back hurts him. Person-A, with all good intentions, suggests that Person-B buy a magnetic bracelet because Person-A previously enjoyed its benefits. Person-B wears the bracelet and perceives the pain to abate some time thereafter (since pain is seldom constant and usually cycles up and down during natural recovery). But Person-B's underlying condition remains untreated and does not improve despite the change in pain-level.

The problem is not that Person-A subjects him- or herself to pseudoscientific "treatments." Instead, the problem is that Person-A tends to become an advocate for that treatment, and others may forego real medical attention as a result.

===================

So it's decidedly unethical for a medical practitioner to supply a placebo under the guise of actual medicine, but it's also wrong for a placebo-treated patient to give testimony as to the treatment's effectiveness, even if that patient doesn't know that it's just snake oil.


Note that I'm not saying that you, Warpy, are advocating this kind of unethical use of placebo. Merely that the dangers are more subtle and far-reaching than might first be apparent.

[Celebration]

16. LOL!!

Sorry this strikes me as being rather amusing, given that our consitution allows freedom of speech.

You know, people say what they want, people try what they want, people believe what they want, people don't believe what they want.................

I've personally performed many reiki treatments on cancer patients and most of them tell friends/relatives of the benefits they received. Not a single one that I know of stopped their cancer treatments. This is a non-issue.

[BuddhaGirl]

17. thanks for your post, itsjustme

this thread smacks of fear-mongering and spreading panic where none really exists :-)

[Orrex]

18. Once and for all

Find me the post in which I have denied anyone's freedom of speech. Find it. I dare you. And I don't mean a post in which I called for restrictions on fraudulent hucksterism, nor a post in which I cautioned that ill-informed personal testimony should be reined in. Unless it is your view that fraud, slander, and libel are covered under the First Amendment (in which case, you are at odds with 200+ years of judicial philosophy), then you must admit that you are arguing against a point that I have not put forth.

Incidentally, I'm thrilled that no one of your acquaintance has stopped cancer treatments due to the claims of reiki, dubious though they be. I wish I could say the same. And what about people who wear a magnetic bracelet instead of seeking actual treatment for pain or injury? What about people (like the late Coretta Scott King) who forego medical treatment altogether and die as a result? Desperate and vulnerable people are conned into rejecting effective medical treatments every day. It is simply false to claim that this is a non-issue.

But people have the right to choose. Well, no shit! If you choose to treat your ingrown toenail by hitting yourself on the head with a crowbar, then be my guest. But people also have a right to be protected from predatory charlatans and even from sincerely proffered but worthless quack remedies.

Let's draw a line in the sand here: Unless you can find the post in which I explicitly denied anyone the right to non-fraudulent free speech, you must abandon any claim that I am calling for such denial. Is that fair? And if you can't find such a post by me, then why do you feel comfortable making your claim?

[Celebration]

20. you stated

"but it's also wrong for a placebo-treated patient to give testimony as to the treatment's effectiveness, even if that patient doesn't know that it's just snake oil"

What is it exactly that you are advocating? For one thing, you are making claims of snake oil in the same thread as a reiki thread, in which it was stated that reiki--all done in a hospital setting, mind you-- was providing statistically significant benefits in all areas being tested. Yet you persist on implying that it is snake oil.

Then you state that it is "wrong" for a patient to "give testimony" "even if the patient doesn't know that it's just snake oil."

Are you saying that one of the participants of the study should not tell his/her friends that he/she benefitted from reiki? That is "wrong"? Why are you judging what people tell their friends? Are you in the business of making judgments on private conversations? Why? And if you are making judgments, the question is, exactly what do you propose doing about this "wrongness"? Are you implying that reiki is fraudulent and thus talking to friends about the benefits of reiki are not covered by free speech but instead is a legally fraudulent statement? All in the face of evidence collected at a hospital that it does provide benefits? In other words, have you lost your mind?

If I misinterpreted, do let me know. But if that is your position, I find it bizarre and quite dangerous, and threatening to free speech.

[Orrex]

22. For the record

I'm not "implying" that Reiki is snake oil. I am declaring outright and unequivocally that the various methods of so-called "energy healing" are snake oil. Find me one--just one--system of "energy healing" that functions as advertised (that is, it must actually affect one's chi or mana or prana or mojo or whatever in a demonstrable and unambiguous fashion) and I will happily recant. Until then, all so-called "energy healing" is snake oil.

And, for the sake of clarity, a practice that relies on the release of endorphins or the power of suggestion or placebo effect is not "energy healing," so we can exclude such practices. Patent medicines have always made extraordinary (and unsubstantiated) claims, but these are fraudulent even if the advertised product yields some incidental benefit. This is as true of Reiki as it was of some 1890's nostrum.

The cited article notes right at the top: Reiki Therapy Supposed To Restore Body's Energy Flow. Well, that's super-duper.

reiki--all done in a hospital setting, mind you-- was providing statistically significant benefits in all areas being tested

With all due respect to Ms. Ratner, the study is close to worthless as a proof of Reiki for at least two reasons: there is no double-blind, and there is no way to distinguish the perceived results from a variation of the famous Hawthorne effect. Show me the double blind. Show me the control group that received "placebo Reiki." Show me the method by which "Reiki-induced" benefits were distinguished from benefits resulting from direct, personal attention paid to the patient. Absent these, Ms. Ratner's "statistically significant benefits" are not significant at all, statistitically or otherwise. Hell, if she's so sure of her results, she should contact James Randi and win herself a quick million to be applied to her noble pseudoscientific dabblings.

You ask what I am advocating. Let me tell you:

I am advocating the clear rejection of magical thinking within our institutions of medicine. I advocate the rejection of popular but wholly unproven methods of "energy healing" and other pseudoscience.

Are you saying that one of the participants of the study should not tell his/her friends that he/she benefitted from reiki?

Frankly, yes. But it's honestly not the fault of the participant, who is likely desperate and understandably in no position to make objective assessments about feel-good gobbledygook. The fault lies with the practitioner (and Ms. Ratner specifically) for passing off unverified pseudoscience as actual medicine, especially because she does so in the guise of a respected medical authority.

Why are you judging what people tell their friends? Are you in the business of making judgments on private conversations?

First, tell me why you cry "free speech!" whenever someone objects to bullshit pseudoscience. Your stance is, in a word, juvenile, because it's really not an issue of free speech unless you believe that scientific fact is subject to personal preference. And, if so, then I could as easily accuse you of restricting my free speech because you object to my objection. See what a pointlessly infinite regression you've created for us?

As I've said repeatedly, I don't care what curative efforts anyone wants to make on her own behalf. If a person wants to use a drill-press for some self-trepanning, more power to her. But when someone advocates unverified pseudoscience in place of actual medicine, then it is the business of any responsible, informed person to oppose the advocate.

Why? And if you are making judgments, the question is, exactly what do you propose doing about this "wrongness"? Are you implying that reiki is fraudulent and thus talking to friends about the benefits of reiki are not covered by free speech but instead is a legally fraudulent statement?

Again, I'm not implying anything. Reiki, as advertised, is fraudulent. And any claim that Reiki is "experimentally verified" is likewise fraudulent. Making statements to friends about the benefits of Reiki is clearly covered by free speech, but such statements are at best unsupported and at worst willful fabrications. If the latter, then they are knowingly fraudulent.

In other words, have you lost your mind?

When it is considered insanity to act in a rational manner, then only the insane will be rational. Looks like we're almost there, I'd say.


Here is what vexes me throughout all of our conversations on these subjects: you have no apparent grasp of the scientific method and you vehemently oppose any call for an objective and thorough evaluation of the methods of so-called "energy healings." Instead, you squawk about free speech as if that's central. You additionally require the skeptic to disprove or account for the claims of pseudoscientists; you assume that any claim is valid until disproven, as long as it makes people feel better along the way. Sorry, but that's not how it works. The pseudoscientist must prove her claim all by herself. It is not the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove bullshit.

[Celebration]

23. well the patients are happy with the results

It seems that means nothing to you, but you would rather vehemently promote your personal agenda, despite the fact that the patients and hospital are happy with the results. Anything to make cancer patients' lives a little easier should logically be generously welcomed.

I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything-- just a little live and let live.

I perform reiki, as an AVOCATION, not vocation. I daresay that I know a whole lot more about it and what happens, what the results are, and how I perform it than you do. The "proof" is merely delayed, due to lack of funding among other reasons. It is probably the safest of any therapy, energetic or otherwise, I cannot imagine why anyone would object to it, other than those who have some sort of agenda or on some sort of vendetta against energetic therapies.

It could be that, like acupuncture, reiki increases the flow of endorphins. That is my guess (along with other things that have not yet been discovered) Has anyone checked? I doubt it. Reiki has a bit of the same *feeling* as acupuncture.

Of course I have no objection if you choose not to have anything to do with reiki. And it is okay with me if you rant and rave about it. But since you have little experience with it, it seems a little foolish, frankly.

A little experience with reiki has been known to change many sceptics' minds (many stories on that).

[Orrex]

24. Short-term patient happiness is a poor indicator of long-term value

I am not asking you to prove or disprove anything-- just a little live and let live.

Live and let live doesn't enter into it, either. A hospital is an institute of medicine and should not be in the business of pandering to new-agey feelgoodism. Any endorsement by a medical institution lends an unfortunate air of credibility to a practice that is, as I've stated already, snake oil.

I perform reiki, as an AVOCATION, not vocation. I daresay that I know a whole lot more about it and what happens, what the results are, and how I perform it than you do.

Well, if I cared to undertake the magical "attunement" required to become a Reiki master, then I guess I'd know just as much as you. But since I'm not going to waste my time learning to practice nonsensical hucksterism, then I'll just have to rely on empirical analysis, at which I daresay I am far more proficient than you.

The "proof" is merely delayed, due to lack of funding among other reasons.

Then further practice of this nonsensical hucksterism should be suspended until the "proof" is demonstrated, if ever. The testimony of advocates—even well-meaning advocates—is grossly insufficient, as is the testimony of people desperate for any remedy. Appeals to proof-yet-to-come are appeals to magical thinking

It is probably the safest of any therapy, energetic or otherwise, I cannot imagine why anyone would object to it, other than those who have some sort of agenda or on some sort of vendetta against energetic therapies.

The only people who object to it are those who require that a demonstration of efficacy precede an endorsement by a medical institution. Even if we accept this lovely study at face value, the absolute most we can say is "participants, aware that Reiki was being performed, perceived some effect that can't be isolated to Reiki itself and, incidentally, Reiki has never been demonstrated to have any effect whatsoever."

It could be that, like acupuncture, reiki increases the flow of endorphins.

Then it's snake oil, as I said. And do you know why? Because the proponents of that nonsensical hucksterism pass it off as "energy healing" rather than saying "this might release endorphins, though we can't really verify that." But if you wish to maintain that Reiki releases endorphins, then it's up to you to demonstrate how this might be accomplished. Instead, you (and Reiki-people in general) fall back on "as yet unknown" forces that somehow magically enable Reiki to function. Yeah, well.

You've argued repeatedly that I am somehow against free speech or against patients feeling better, and both of these are manifestly untrue. You, in stark contrast, are vigorously opposed to any demonstration of fact that conflicts with your rose-colored new age world, and you reject the very notion that practitioners of nonsensical hucksterism be required to validate their claims more concretely than by personal testimony.

Of course I have no objection if you choose not to have anything to do with reiki. And it is okay with me if you rant and rave about it. But since you have little experience with it, it seems a little foolish, frankly.

Oh, please. Not that it's any of your business, but my Aunt is an actual Reiki master, so I have plenty of up-close-and-personal experience with it, thanks. And I tell you what I tell her: no matter how deeply Reiki advocates want to believe that it works, there is no empirical evidence that it does work as advertised. That is, there is no evidence that it "balances" one's life-force. Advocates must either abandon that claim or demonstrate that it works that way--otherwise, it's fraud.

A little experience with reiki has been known to change many sceptics' minds (many stories on that).

In that regard, you're 100% correct. Before my experience with Reiki, I had a suspicion that it was bullshit. After my experience with it, I am very strongly convinced that it is bullshit.

[Celebration]

25. this is weird

I mean, really, what you think about reiki is of no importance to me or anyone else. The only person who has to be happy with it is the patient. I'm glad hospitals are doing it because the patients seem to be happy with it. It really *is* very simple.....

Laughter releases endorphins, you know. Is it as helpful as acupuncture? I doubt it. However it is very helpful. Just about anything that brings pleasure releases endorphins. Very few acupuncturists would say that it is all about the endorphins. That leaves you with a whole lot of the effect that is "unexplained." The unexplained doesn't bother me at all--nor does it frighten me, nor does it threaten me. It just *is.* I do love the idea of pursuing an explanation though.

[Orrex]

26. Make a claim and document it--"chi" or endorphins?

I mean, really, what you think about reiki is of no importance to me or anyone else.

We've apparently reached the inevitable point at which the new-ager sticks his/her metaphorical fingers in his/her ears and starts chanting some happy tune to him/herself.

What you think of my opinion couldn't possibly matter less to me. However, since I am reporting not opinion but fact here, you don't do yourself or your beloved Reiki any great service by ignoring me.

The only person who has to be happy with it is the patient. I'm glad hospitals are doing it because the patients seem to be happy with it. It really *is* very simple.....

It's clear that you think that it's very simple, but that, too, is irrelevant. At issue is a multibillion dollar "alternative" "medicine" industry that's pounding on the door of western medicine in an effort to gain access to the desperate and suffering. I have no doubt that some people really do want to use their magical powers to help others, but for every altruistic Reiki practitioner, there are a thousand Kevin Trudeaus and Hulda Clarks. It's all of a piece--hucksterism is hucksterism, and these parasites will aggressively pursue any available means to gain a profit for themselves.

Laughter releases endorphins, you know.

No shit. Find me an accredited, western medical institution that has endorsed laughter as a means of balancing one's life force or correcting one's chi-flow or any other crazy mumbo-jumbo attributed to Reiki. I would be generally surprised if you can find even one.

Laughter in a hospital has been shown for decades to have a positive effect upon patients' well-being, the signature example being children in cancer clinics or burn wards. But nowhere do advocates of this caring and noble practice feel the need to support their claims with allegations of metaphysical nonsense. In fact, no one lies to these children by claiming that laughter will magically restore them to health--the whole purpose is to brighten the patients' mood and increase their comfort. Even if some metaphysical claim were made, there's a big difference between telling a fairy tale to a young, suffering child and telling the same fairy tale to a full-grown adult.

Practitioners of Reiki, acupuncture, and therapeutic touch all leap onto the chi bandwagon and then, when they can't produce any evidence for the results they claim, they fall back on "it, uh, releases endorphins--I don't know how, but it does." Then they claim that someone is trying to restrict their freedoms, and after all "if it doesn't hurt the patient, what's the harm?"


Reiki is formally described as an energy therapy that brings or restores balance to one's life-force. If that's so, then let its advocates document this effect and show, in a controlled study, how Reiki actually "balances" the "life-force." If this can not be done, then let Reiki's advocates recant their sermons about chi-balance. If Reiki somehow does release endorphins--though this is far from conclusive--then let Reiki's advocates adopt that as their new slogan instead.

Very few acupuncturists would say that it is all about the endorphins.

In other words, almost all acupuncturists either lie or help maintain the lie that some magical chi-force is at work. Show me the empirical evidence, please, without relying on claims that "we just can't detect it yet" or the like.

That leaves you with a whole lot of the effect that is "unexplained." The unexplained doesn't bother me at all--nor does it frighten me, nor does it threaten me.

The problem doesn't occur when a phenomenon is unexplained. The problem occurs when some party with a vested interest offers a pseudo-explanation that in fact explains nothing (a la "it exists but it can't be detected or verified in any way, and if it doesn't work for you then you must be resisting it"). Creationists function in exactly the same way, and I reject their pseudoscientific bullshit at least as strongly as I reject the claims of new age hucksters.

I have argued with some fundy Christians who, when faced with a rational opponent who doesn't accept personal witnessing as evidence, will accuse me of blindness or arrogance or something similar. I see that we've reached the same point in this argument, wherein you obliquely accuse me of cowardice because I am unwilling to make an substantiated leap of metaphysical faith. Thanks, but I'll take evidence over belief any day.

It just *is.* I do love the idea of pursuing an explanation though.

In the context of this discussion, those two statements are wholly incompatible. From what I have learned throughout our discussions, I would suggest that you love the idea of reaching an explanation that pleases you, and that's where your inquiry ceases.

[Celebration]

27. My claim is as follows:

Reiki makes people feel more balanced, and it is pleasureable. It probably helps release endorphins just as laughter and acupuncture do, but studies have not been done on this. When people are balanced, they are more relaxed. When they relax and tension doesn't build up, they are more likely to be able to use their natural healing processes. That may affect many things in the body, but it is unknown until it is tried, and the response varies from individual to individual. There is some research done on reiki, but not enough to convince skeptical people. It is not a substitute for things like chemotherapy for cancer. It is being done in some hospitals experimentally.

It also is non invasive and very safe. Now, you have your choice as to whether you try it or not.

Not fraudulent. Very simple. Try it or not.

[onager]

28. No thanks, my endorphins are just fine.

Nothing makes me laugh harder than a proponent of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook getting their ass handed to them.

[Ayesha]

29. You're confusing inaccurate description with ineffectiveness

Here's what I mean. Let's pretend for a moment that chemotherapy was developed 500 years ago. At the time, let's say it was believed that it worked by casting out evil spirits, and so even today, it is described as a "spirit-balancing" treatment. Of course we now know it works by killing cancer cells, but how we describe it doesn't change its effectiveness!

I'm not saying Reiki does or doesn't work (I've never tried it), but just because it's described in psychological terms doesn't mean there aren't physical effects that aren't fully understood by science yet. Also, no one is asserting that it cures cancer - it is ADJUNCTIVE relief of anxiety, stress, and pain associated with cancer.

I'm an intern at an organization that offers support groups, tai chi, qi gong, yoga, and meditation for people with cancer. The programs are designed to be a supplement to medical treatment and to help improve the immune system by reducing stress and isolation. It is in no way a substitute for chemotherapy, radiation etc. and I can't imagine anyone saying so. Certainly nobody at the organization, or on this thread, has made that assertion, so all of the ire surrounding this topic is mystifying to me.

[Orrex]

30. An unsubstantiated metaphysical claim has NO PLACE in medicine

Even if chemotherapy were developed 500 years ago and attributed to the casting out of spirits, chances are very slim that its modern practice would likewise cling to that primitive superstition. Find me any accredited modern western medical practice that relies on spirits or the supernatural to explain its function. An appeal to the supernatural is incompatible with modern medicine. This is especially true when the precise functioning of a treatment is incompletely understood.

By the way, here's a citation from the Skeptic's Dictionary:

Larry Arnold and Sandra Nevins claim in The Reiki Handbook (1992) that reiki is useful for treating brain damage, cancer, diabetes and venereal diseases. If the healing fails, however, it is because the patient is resisting the healing energy. (Emphasis mine)

So even if no one in this particular thread have made that claim, proponents of Reiki do in fact allege that the practice can perform actual healing in excess of relaxation.

If Reiki works by releasing endorphins or by lowering blood pressure or by improving circulation or some similar function, then that is the claim that should be made. But even if this were so, it is still inexcusable to cloak a medical procedure in supernatural gobbledygook.

all of the ire surrounding this topic is mystifying to me.

Really? Well, to be frank, I find supersition and magical thinking to be intellectually offensive, and they indicate a person who has abandoned rational inquiry into at least one subject.

Additionally, the propogation of pseudoscientific "alternative" "medicine" is dangerous and parasitic, and it seems to me that any responsible person should oppose it whenever possible.

So even if Reiki makes some people feel better, it is grossly incorrect to pass it off as some mystical "energy healing" when there is no evidence that this is the case.



Does that answer your question?

[Ayesha]

31. That book is poorly reviewed

Many readers on Amazon don't recommend it because of those claims. Says one:

"Reiki is NOT, and should NEVER be used in place of proper health care. Any Reiki practitioner or master that tells you not to go to the doctor or to throw away your medication is a fool, and you should RUN (not walk) away from that person."

Also, no one said that Reiki is a medical procedure. And you are ignoring the fact that the hospital itself is doing a scientific study of their Reiki program and has seen improvements in the patients who do it. Why? Who knows. It could be some physical effect, or it could be that the process relieves stress, or touches a person spiritually which relieves stress and anxiety. If it is the latter, then the metaphysical claims may be part of its effectiveness, and to call it "endorphin release therapy" or something of that nature would make it less useful.

It's also important to note that one of the reasons people like treatments such as Reiki is because they provide relief from the coldness of modern medicine. With standard Western medicine it is all about pills, surgeries, and physical alteration of the body. It's all about statistics, costs, and physical outcomes, while ignoring a person's essential humanity, their psychology, and their spirituality. It is healing from without while ignoring the idea of healing from within. Chemotherapy kills the cancer, but it also kills healthy cells, and makes a person feel sick and exhausted. Therefore the person needs the chemo, but they also need to heal FROM it before and afterwards. That's where things like Reiki come in. Of course if such things don't appeal to you, you're free to not use them, but it irritates me that you want to stop others from doing something that they find helpful and that is not hurting them, and have nothing better to do than derail this thread and keep people from talking about trying Reiki and how it did (or didn't!) help them feel better.

Edited to add another article on the mind-body connection and cancer:
http://www.washdiplomat.com/04-02/c4_04_02.html

[Orrex]

32. You're misrepresenting my argument

Poorly reviewed or not, the book makes claims that I've read elsewhere. In this very forum, some have alleged that acupuncture (another so-called "energy therapy") can cure a sinus infection and other physical ailments. I've known people who claimed that Reiki has cured cysts and tendonitis. Like it or not, Reiki is claimed to have healing powers far beyond "relieved anxiety" or "released endorphins."

If {Reiki touches a person spiritually}, then the metaphysical claims may be part of its effectiveness

If that's truly your view, then you are explicitly arguing that a practitioner should give false information to the recipient. Are you as tolerant of deceptive assertions by doctors, or do you require them to give 100% unadulterated truth even as Reiki make any unsubstantiated claim that they wish?

but it irritates me that you want to stop others from doing something that they find helpful and that is not hurting them, and have nothing better to do than derail this thread and keep people from talking about trying Reiki and how it did (or didn't!) help them feel better.

If this really irritates you, then you clearly haven't been reading my posts. I have stated repeatedly that if a person wants to pursue an alleged curative effort, they're welcome to do so. However, the problem occurs when a practitioner of Reiki or similar hucksterism makes an unsubstantiated claim about the efficacy of that so-called treatment. It doesn't matter that they couch it in general, non-falsifiable new age buzzwords, either. The fact is that Reiki is being represented as something for which there is no evidence whatsoever (namely, a means of manipulating so-called "subtle energy"), and therefore it's fraudulent no matter how well-intentioned.

In your view, would it be ethical for an oncologist to tell a patient that a round of chemo entails an infusion of magical pixie-dust and may cause nausea when the evil cancer-monster is driven out? What, if any, burden of responsibility do you place upon the practitioner?

Also, no one said that Reiki is a medical procedure.

I beg your pardon, but the administration of a procedure with the intention of healing is explicitly a medical procedure, even if the procedure in question is of--at best--dubious validity.

And you are ignoring the fact that the hospital itself is doing a scientific study of their Reiki program and has seen improvements in the patients who do it.

Once again, you appear not to have read what I've written. If you had read my posts, you'd know that I spelled out specifically why the study in question is of minimal value: it lacked a double-blind; it lacked a control group; and it lacked a means of distinguishing between Reiki-related response and personal-attention-related response. Sorry, but the methodology is so feeble as to render the study worthless except to those who already believe that Reiki works.

Your entire last paragraph, I'm afraid, is pure new age sloganeering against cold and mechanistic Western medicine and the evils of impersonal science.


I'll repeat my earlier challenge in the hope that you will try to meet it: point me to a single study by an accredited and modern western medical institution that shows unambiguously that Reiki has a positive beneficial effect upon patient health. I'm not interested in "they got better after Reiki/therefore they got better because of Reiki" or "it boosted their spirits" or "it didn't cause any harm." Show me the actual, positive, physical effect as well as the evidence that Reiki is its cause.

Otherwise, you are just witnessing.

[Celebration]

33. healing

I beg your pardon, but the administration of a procedure with the intention of healing is explicitly a medical procedure, even if the procedure in question is of--at best--dubious validity.

So then getting kids to laugh to get their endorphins going is a medical procedure, by your definition. I guess different jokes, etc. have to be tested now and submitted to the FDA and shown to be effective before they can be used.

Please, please. Reiki DOES NOT CLAIM TO HEAL ANYTHING. It is the PERSON WHO HEALS. All reiki does is help put the person in the position to heal himself or herself. Then that would be a medical procedure too I guess-- you know, a person healing himself----sending clotting factors to wounds, etc.

I have said this many times but people seem to forget-- the person heals himself, the person heals herself, the person heals himself, the person heals herself, the person heals himself, the person heals herself, the person heals himself, the person heals herself, the person heals himself, the person heals herself.

[Orrex]

35. If the person heals himself, then who pays the bill?

So then getting kids to laugh to get their endorphins going is a medical procedure, by your definition. I guess different jokes, etc. have to be tested now and submitted to the FDA and shown to be effective before they can be used.

Such testing would show, for example, that your attempt to at humor provides no discernable benefit, medical or otherwise.

It was a mistake on my part to assume that you understand that I was referring to a procedure administered with the intention of healing in a medical context is explicitly a medical procedure. Therefore Reiki administered in a hospital is a medical procedure.

You're attempting one of the classic new age rhetorical tactics: demand absolute literal precision from your opponent while feeling free to make your own statements sweepingly vague.

Please, please. Reiki DOES NOT CLAIM TO HEAL ANYTHING.

I accept that this is your belief, but others do not share it:

Reiki heals by flowing through the affected parts of the energy field and charging them with positive energy.

From What Is Reiki?.

You can chant again and again that Reiki doesn't claim to heal, but your voice is not the only one speaking on Reiki's behalf.

I have said this many times but people seem to forget-- the person heals himself,

And every time you've said it, you've demonstrated that you know nothing of modern medicine. Certainly the patient participates in his or her own healing, but it seems to me that the doctor who excises the tumor should get some of the credit, too.

People at a restaurant generally feed themselves, but it's a mistake to pretend that they also cook their own food while there.

Medicine is a participatory process with many players.


You've gotten to the point where your entire "argument" consists of taking pot-shots at what you construe as imprecise wording. Let me know if you come up with something useful to contribute.

[Ayesha]

34. Studies

If that's truly your view, then you are explicitly arguing that a practitioner should give false information to the recipient. Are you as tolerant of deceptive assertions by doctors, or do you require them to give 100% unadulterated truth even as Reiki make any unsubstantiated claim that they wish?

The nature of spirituality is virtually impossible to prove or disprove. Spirituality is experienced by people of many religions as well as many nonreligious people. Therefore if Reiki is described as working with spiritual energy, the practitioner isn't being deceptive by saying so. The person receiving Reiki is free to believe it, or not.

I beg your pardon, but the administration of a procedure with the intention of healing is explicitly a medical procedure

Not necessarily true. Psychotherapy, for example. I'm sure there are others, but that's my field so that's what came to mind.

If you had read my posts, you'd know that I spelled out specifically why the study in question is of minimal value: it lacked a double-blind; it lacked a control group; and it lacked a means of distinguishing between Reiki-related response and personal-attention-related response.

Here is some info on studies:

http://www.reikimedresearch.com/#104 <-- good summary of the research
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2004.10.1077 <-- includes a control and placebo group
http://www.ahealingtouch.com/html/studies.html
http://www.reikiresearchfoundation.org/msstudies.htm
http://www.reikihelp.com/MoreArticles.html
http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/hospitalsandservices/programs/services/?ID=1489

Based on this research, I would put Reiki on par with a drug in clinical trials; there is evidence of benefit, but more research is needed. However unlike a drug in clinical trials, there is virtually no risk of negative side effects, and thus no reason not to recommend it.


Your entire last paragraph, I'm afraid, is pure new age sloganeering against cold and mechanistic Western medicine and the evils of impersonal science.

No, it is a challenge to the idea of treating the body without also treating the mind and spirit.

[Orrex]

36. An unprovable claim has no place in modern medicine

if Reiki is described as working with spiritual energy, the practitioner isn't being deceptive by saying so.

If the practitioner uses the word "energy," then the practitioner had better be able to explain in detail why this "energy" is undetectable by any mechanism yet created. Remember, devices exist that can detect a single photon--if Reiki's so-called "energy" actually is energy, then this discrepancy must be explained. The same goes for all other so-called "energy therapies."

Alternatively, if Reiki practitioners use the word "energy" as a metaphor, then they should disclaim this fact; otherwise, it's flatly deceptive.

The person receiving Reiki is free to believe it, or not.

Therefore Reiki is inherently non-falsifiable and should never be put forth as a proven or verified method of healing.

Incidentally, your statement handily destroys the value of the studies that you cited.

Psychotherapy, for example. I'm sure there are others, but that's my field so that's what came to mind.

Sigh. Okay. Then let's try it this way:

The administration of a procedure with the intention of inducing physical healing is explicitly a medical procedure.

I know, I know, we can all cite "yeah-but" examples to refute this, but I think that it stands up pretty well regardless. And Reiki, administered in a hospital or to cure one's hypertension is definitely a medical procedure.

Here is some info on studies:

Thank you for providing these links. I'll go through them one at a time:

http://www.reikimedresearch.com/#104 <-- good summary of the research
But a summary from a vested source. I'd prefer to see the "peer reviewed journals" and an assessment by an objective source. Also, the study seems to have as its goal the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy, wherein the target is only specified after a whole bunch of results pop up. In order to have validity, the study must make a prediction and then test that prediction. Instead, the researchers seem to be logging any physiological change and then attributing that change to the "energy healing" with no clear justification for doing so. This deceptive practice is astonishingly common among advocates of new age pseudoscience.

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2004.1... <-- includes a control and placebo group
A main weakness not addressed: Did they control for the patients' belief or disbelief in Reiki? If not, then why not? If so, then how?

Another weakness: what other factors (diet, medication, etc.) may have played a part. If these were controlled, there is no indication that this is the case.

Commendably, the study admits to the weakness of the sample size and the small changes observed in the study. No one should cite this study as evidence of anything other than the possibility of further studies.

http://www.ahealingtouch.com/html/studies.html
I'm afraid that this one is so non-specific in its claims and controls that it's of no value. It makes no effort to indicate how the results can credibly be attributed to "energy therapy" as opposed to other factors.

http://www.reikiresearchfoundation.org/msstudies.htm
This one is likewise too non-specific to be of value and additionally suffers from a woefully small sample-size. Multiple sclerosis is not a linear illness, either; its victims have good days and bad days, and this cyclical process would readily account for the variance shown (which, again, is based on a too-small sample).

http://www.reikihelp.com/MoreArticles.html
So-called "distance healing" is even more poorly supported than the dreadfully poorly supported practice of in-the-same-room Reiki, and this study doesn't change that fact. I don't even know where to begin about the inadequacy of controls and the impossibility of verification or reproducibility.

http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/hospitalsandse...
It should be mentioned that "Therapeutic touch" has been exposed as a fraud, and the debunker was pre-teenage girl! Any subsequent studies that purport to verify Therapeutic touch must also account for the outright debunking of the practice.

But here's the money quote:

neither the external energy fields nor their therapeutic effects have been demonstrated convincingly by any biophysical means.

Many small studies of Therapeutic Touch have suggested its effectiveness in a wide variety of conditions, including wound healing, osteoarthritis, migraine headaches and anxiety in burn patients. In a recent meta-analysis of 11 controlled Therapeutic Touch studies, seven controlled studies had positive outcomes and three showed no effect; in one study, the control group healed faster than the Therapeutic Touch group. Similarly, Reiki and Johrei practitioners claim that the therapies boost the body's immune system, enhance the body's ability to heal itself, and are beneficial for a wide range of problems, such as stress-related conditions, allergies, heart conditions, high blood pressure and chronic pain. However, there has been little rigorous scientific research. Overall, these therapies have impressive anecdotal evidence, but none has been proven scientifically to be effective.

Really, that says it all.

Based on this research, I would put Reiki on par with a drug in clinical trials; there is evidence of benefit, but more research is needed. However unlike a drug in clinical trials, there is virtually no risk of negative side effects, and thus no reason not to recommend it.
The utter lack of demonstrated efficacy is more than sufficient reason not to recommend it in an authoritative medical context such as a hospital.

Look, if you're in a hospital and your best pal happens to be a Reiki guru and you want a quick dose of life-force to ease your anxiety, by all means go for it. But that absolutely doesn't mean that a hospital should endorse, even by implication, a practice that has not been demonstrated to have any value. If a hospital wishes to study Reiki, that's fine of course. But until a study demonstrates conclusively that Reiki works, then the hospital should make no claims about Reiki's value. And even if a study does show that Reiki has some effect, then there should still be no claims about "subtle energy" or what have you unless this "subtle energy" is directly demonstrated. That is, even if Reiki should happen to work, that in itself is not evidence of "subtle energy" or of any other "energy healing," either.

I should state again that it's not the responsibility of the skeptic to debunk every study offered by advocates of a pseudoscientific belief. Until a definitive study is put forth--preferably by an agency without a vested interest in Reiki's validation--then there is no further requirement upon me to debunk the vague and largely redundant claims of a dozen inconclusive research projects. That's why I've previously asked specifically for studies by accredited, modern, and western medical institutes.

it is a challenge to the idea of treating the body without also treating the mind and spirit.

In that regard, you're preaching to the choir. I see no evidence to conclude that the "mind" or "spirit" exists separate from the body, so treating the "mind" or "spirit" is a function of treating the body.

But if you have evidence that the "mind" or "spirit" does exist independent of the body, then I would greatly like to see it.


Still, I thank you sincerely for going through the effort to provide links. :hi:

[Celebration]

37. Award Winning Hospital Program

Too bad Orrex disapproves of this:

http://www.harthosp.org/articles/docs/news021205.html

Hartford Hospital's Reiki Volunteer Program was recently honored as the recipient of the 2002 Extraordinary Program Award from the American Society of Directors of Volunteer Services (ASDVS), a division of the American Hospital Association. Every year ASDVS identifies two exceptional healthcare volunteer programs that have functioned at least 3 years, are unique and original, and can show substantial benefit to the recipients, the healthcare organization, and the volunteers involved.

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

From January through June of 2002 approximately 1,480 Reiki sessions were provided at Hartford Hospital. Surveys show that Reiki had a positive impact by reducing patient stress/anxiety an average of 94%, nausea 80%, pain 78%, and improved sleep 86%. Volunteers are rated as "caring and courteous" 100% of the time, and patients rate the service overall: Good: 8.7%, Very Good 12.88% and Excellent 77.3%. Patient comments have included:

"The best thing Hartford Hospital has every done!"

"Even with drugs it is hard to relax, but with this Reiki experience I was able to completely relax."

"Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!"

[Orrex]

38. You've got to be kidding me

An award by a "Volunteer Services" organization does not magically turn pseudoscience into medicine. Hell, my local hospital has an award-winning art gallery--that doesn't turn a painting of a river into medicine, either.

Once again, you are falling back on effusive personal testimony in the utter absence of actual empirical evidence. Perhaps you truly don't know the difference, but here's a good indicator for future reference: empirical evidence doesn't have to rely on rave reviews to give it credibility.

Additionally, you are once again trying to paint it as a matter of my "approval" versus yours. My approval, like yours, is irrelevant, because the facts speak for themselves and have very nearly nothing to say in support of Reiki as a demonstrably effective medical practice.

I don't care if an anonymous true-believer really does think that this is the best thing that the hospital has every (sic) done. The article doesn't refer to a study and instead offers bubblingly positive feedback with no mention of controls, double-blind, placebo, reproducibility, or even a shred of evidence outside of testimony. If you really think that passes for validity, then I repeat my earlier observation that you seem to know nothing of modern medicine.

While I've got your attention, it hardly seems surprising to me that volunteers who are "caring and courteous" 100% of the time would, simply through their presence, have a positive impact on patient morale. But instead of recognizing this as an example of the value of compassionate human interaction, you feel compelled to add supernatural gobbledygook to the equation. Why is that?

[Celebration]

39. I know the difference

Anecdotal evidence ALWAYS preceeds double blind studies. You quote "caring and courteous" 100% of the time, but don't seem to CARE that the PATIENTS REALLY SEEM TO LOVE this program. You would still ax it, if you were the administrator. That's the bottom line-- you would keep an award winning art gallery program and GET RID of the award winning reiki program, despite the patient reviews because you say that it doesn't belong in a hospital. I think that is criminal.

[Orrex]

42. You really have no ability to reason logically or to stay on-topic

To anyone following the thread, I'd like to draw your attention to two additional tactics much beloved by new agers:

1. Ignoring unpleasant questions from skeptics
2. Deliberate misreading or misquoting, done sarcastically if possible


Anecdotal evidence ALWAYS preceeds double blind studies.

Except in the case of "energy therapies" and other new age hucksterism, wherein anecdotal evidence entirely takes the place of double blind studies. Rational inquiry would say "there's some anecdotal evidence, so let's study it further." Instead, advocates of "energy healing" say "there's some anecdotal evidence, so there's no need for further inquiry." That's wildly irresponsible.

You quote "caring and courteous" 100% of the time, but don't seem to CARE that the PATIENTS REALLY SEEM TO LOVE this program.

I'm delighted that the patients seem to love this program, but that's entirely irrelevant. The study cited in the original post wasn't attempting to prove whether or not patients like Reiki--it was attempting to demonstrate that Reiki works by moving energy.

The issue, as I've written time and again, is "Does Reiki work as advertised?" That is, does Reiki "allow the person to heal" by "balancing life-force" or not?The answer, according to all viable and available studies to date is a resounding "NO!"

Let the program persist as long as it doesn't affect the bill of anyone who doesn't want it, and as long as the patients receiving it aren't given deceptive information regarding its value or functioning. Even if you want to tell them something about endorphins, you'd better have the supporting data in hand, or else you're lying to them.

You would still ax it, if you were the administrator.

I would ax it if it were being practiced fraudulently, if its practice presented a danger to the patient, or if it created false hopes about Reiki or false fears about actual medicine. Otherwise, have at it, I say.

you would keep an award winning art gallery program and GET RID of the award winning reiki program, despite the patient reviews because you say that it doesn't belong in a hospital.

In fact, I pointed out that winning an award does not impart medical value to an exhibit or to Reiki, so your touting of the Reiki award is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not Reiki has medical value.

I think that is criminal.

And I think it's pathetic that an adult human being, living in the 21st century, gleefully abandons reason, logic, and empirical evidence in favor of an ill-defined fairytale wholly unsupported by reason, logic, or empirical evidence. It's not a matter of assessing the evidence and deciding in favor of Reiki; on the contary, you reject all evidence that doesn't support your view. At best, that is willfully delusional. At worst, it is intellectually dishonest.

Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Why not? There is just as much evidence for his existence as there is evidence that Reiki works as advertised.

[Celebration]

43. You are the one trying to change the subject

I quote a study about reiki, and you don't like it, and say it shouldn't be used in a hospital, which it was, FINE!!! Did I ever say the matter was settled? Or that there are definitive double blind studies on chi? NO!! I never claimed that, but you continue to attack me as if I had!! Talk about setting up a straw man....... I report interesting probably preliminary evidence that reiki works for the things tested in the hospital, and all you can do is attack reiki for NOT HAVING DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE. I never claimed that, nor did the article.

What you did say was that reiki was not appropriate in a hospital setting. Now you are backtracking but slightly. I quoted a newspaper article in another thread showing that using art in a hospital setting SAVES MONEY. Probably future studies on reiki should be focused on this, since our society is so materially focused. That would be a good idea-- who cares about chi or feelings or how people like it, or claims, or wellness or wholeness. LET'S SAVE MONEY!! I actually think all that is important, and I am a money saver along with the rest of society. The new slogan--REIKI SAVES MONEY could become of paramount importance.

What's this about the Easter bunny? Do you have kids? Do they hunt for eggs? Does Santa Claus come at Christmas time? Sure, we do ALL of that around here. And I never told them it wasn't real either!! (except for my youngest who was really hanging on to it a bit too long). I make NO APOLOGIES for any of that. No I am not a grinch. If you want to raise kids without the Easter bunny or Santa Claus go ahead--but I do feel sorry for them.

[Orrex]

44. The article claims that Reiki heals by "moving energy"

That's either an outright lie or an entirely unsubstantiated conjecture, and in either case it shouldn't have been printed as a statement of fact.

I attacked the study as inadequate because it was posted in a public forum presumably for review and comment. If you only wanted flowery "I-HEART-Reiki" responses, you should have issued a disclaimer within your original post.

What you did say was that reiki was not appropriate in a hospital setting.

Not appropriate in a hospital setting if it's put forth as a verified technique or as a form of "energy healing." If Reiki is offered with no vague, false, or misleading claims about its efficacy or value, then I have no problem with it. This has been my consistent view all along.

Point me to the thread about Reiki saving money, and I'll comment there.

What's this about the Easter bunny? Do you have kids? Do they hunt for eggs? Does Santa Claus come at Christmas time? ... If you want to raise kids without the Easter bunny or Santa Claus go ahead--but I do feel sorry for them.

The point about the Easter Bunny is that there is no evidence for his existence, and therefore few adults believe in him. Strangely, there is likewise no evidence that Reiki works as advertised, yet bunches and bunches of adults believe in it. Why this inconsistency? What is the standard for acceptance, if not evidence?

Incidentally, my son does indeed seem to believe that some character called "The Easter Bunny" brought him a basket of goodies this year, but he's two years old!

Sure, we do ALL of that around here. And I never told them it wasn't real either!!

Never? Do they still believe in him? If not, how did they achieve this epiphany? Perhaps by applying logic and reason and by assessing evidence?

At some point I'll probably respect my son's ability to reason enough to reveal that the Easter Bunny is just a pleasant story, if he hasn't already figured it out for himself. One would hope that 21st century adults would be able to reason as well as a young child, but a mountain of evidence suggests otherwise.

If you want to take your cues as to the functioning of medicine from toddlers' belief systems, then go right ahead.

[Celebration]

45. so the practitioner's statement bothered you--

"I'm putting the hands where they need to be, making the connection -- the energetic connection -- then letting the energy flow through me to the patient," said practitioner Landis Vance.

This is very similar, of course, to an acupuncturist stating that he is affecting the flow of energy through the body by placing needles various places. And there are very few acupuncturists who don't believe that.

Landis is merely describing the method that he uses to affect an energetic change in the patient. He would actually be lying if he uses that method but then stated that all he is doing is randomly touching the patient with no particular goal in mind. See, that would be a real lie--if he is doing the former but then states the latter.

So it is no lie-- he would have no incentive to lie. So, if it is not a lie, you say that it is unsubstantiated. Okay, I agree with you. It is unsubstantiated. So what? What's the point? Would it have satisfied you if he had said--

"I'm putting the hands where they need to be, making the connection -- the energetic connection -- then letting the energy flow through me to the patient," said practitioner Landis Vance. "This mechanism is currently unsubstantiated by formal scientific double blind studies."

It is possible that he even DID say that and was not quoted. I don't see the big deal. Reiki DOES NOT CLAIM to currently be substantiated by absolute proof of its mechanism through double blind studies. So it is a false issue--completely irrelevant, as was your reference to the Easter bunny. Every single post of yours is a diversion as far as I am concerned, because you are demanding absolute proof when reiki does not claim to have absolute proof of mechanism. All we have are a lot of happy people getting reiki treatments who feel that it is beneficial. That pleases me.

[Orrex]

47. The practitioner isn't qualified to make the claims that he's making

"I'm putting the hands where they need to be, making the connection -- the energetic connection -- then letting the energy flow through me to the patient," said practitioner Landis Vance.

So this magical "energy" behaves just like real energy, complete with "connections" and "flows," but it can't be detected in any way except by the magical hands of magical Vance and others like him. Well that's just super! As soon as Vance can present evidence of this magical energy, then I'll recant and become his biggest supporter.

He's making a clear and conscious effort to link the alleged "energy" of his practice with electromagnetic energy, with the IMO obvious intent of lending an air of scientific validity to his claims. That kind of sleight of hand is enormously common in pseudoscience. It immediately signals that the speaker is full of shit and almost certainly knows it. And even if Vance is innocent of willful deception, then he's making claims that he's not qualified to make, unless he has some demonstrable knowledge far in excess of any modern theoretical physics.

(and before someone has the urge to trot out "quantum consciousness" or similar nonsense, I beg forebearance!)

This is very similar, of course, to an acupuncturist stating that he is affecting the flow of energy through the body by placing needles various places. And there are very few acupuncturists who don't believe that.

I know nothing about auto maintenance, but suppose that, in desperation and out of irrational fear of modern western mechanics, you bring your car to me for repair. I talk a lot about carmony and carma in an effort to hide the fact that I don't, ultimately, know what I'm doing. Eventually, after a lot of mumbling to myself (which you might mistake for mystical chanting), I manage to open the hood and jam a screwdriver into the works. In so doing, I accidentally knock the corrosion off of your battery terminals, and now your car starts on the first try, every time. In essence, I got lucky (and so did you), because my tinkering had a beneficial effect despite the fact that I didn't understand the mechanisms that I was dealing with.

If an acupuncturist happens to achieve some result despite believing in a fairy tale, then she and her patient are both lucky. But that success (or failure) has nothing to do with the acupuncturist's belief.

Unless the acupuncturist or magical Vance can demonstrate that this magical energy exists and functions as they describe, then they should do so. If they can't, then they should shut up about it, once and for all.

"I'm putting the hands where they need to be, making the connection -- the energetic connection -- then letting the energy flow through me to the patient," said practitioner Landis Vance. "This mechanism is currently unsubstantiated by formal scientific double blind studies."

It is possible that he even DID say that and was not quoted.

It strikes me as astonishingly unlikely that he did say that. However, if some vestigial sense of honesty compelled him to give a disclaimer, it should be something like: Outside of the unsubstantiated testimony of believers, there is no evidence whatsoever that this mechanism functions as I've described it or that this 'energy' actually exists.

Reiki DOES NOT CLAIM to currently be substantiated by absolute proof of its mechanism through double blind studies.

Nor am I saying that is has made that claim--again, you are misrepresenting my argument. Reiki claims that this magical energy actually exists and in support of this remarkable claim offers only testimony. And despite this, Reiki's practitioners and its zealous supporters claim that the practice has been verified, and they make declarative statements about what it can accomplish (even at a distance!). This deliberate failure to seek corroboration through evidence, all while continuing to claim validity and verification, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

you are demanding absolute proof when reiki does not claim to have absolute proof of mechanism.

Again, you are misrepresenting my argument! I have never asked for absolute proof of anything in any post on DU. Instead, I have asked for reliable supporting evidence--which you have failed to provide. I have also asked for a verifying study by an accredited modern western medical institution, and you've likewise failed to provide this. In fact, all you've provided is a little bit of testimony and a whole lot of outrage that I have the nerve to ask for more.

All we have are a lot of happy people getting reiki treatments who feel that it is beneficial.

Is that all we have? Really? No--we also have a huge segment of the population frighteningly eager to abandon critical thought and embrace a whole range of fairytales.

Even here on DU, where I'd hazard a guess that the average participant is rather more intelligent than "average," magical thinking and uncritical acceptance of nonsense is epidemic. You can see it in the preponderance of conspiracy theories and in the worship of new age nonsense.

[Ayesha]

48. One question

I'm getting rather tired of arguing about this topic, and thankfully others are stepping up to the plate, but I do have one additional question. Do you consider studies done by drug companies of their own medications to be evidence? If so, then you cannot consider these studies to be any less accurate than those, simply because of who conducts them.

[Orrex]

49. That's a fine question, actually!

All else being equal, I would definitely prefer that a drug be tested by an independent organization not affiliated with the manufacturer, designer, or distributor of that drug. Short of that, the study must be made available for peer review and comment. Coverups have certainly occurred, but when exposed they have been harshly criticized and the tests' results called into question.

But here's the difference:

No drug company is making a claim that is entirely at odds with our understanding of physics or physiology. For example, Merck doesn't market a pill by claiming that, when you swallow it, your neighbor's cat turns into a dog--such a development would be groundbreaking (a paradigm shift, to use that horrid little phrase) and would require years of controlled study and a tremendous volume of corroborating data.

Proponents of "energy healing" are making exactly that kind of a claim. They argue that a mystical energy runs through our bodies, maintaining our "balance" and our health. This is not only inconsistent with all that we know of biology; it also conflicts with our understanding of physics. Before we can accept a claim of that magnitude, it must be verified exhaustively and by numerous independent researchers.

To date, no one has demonstrated that "chi energy" even exists, much less that it can affect or be affected by people as claimed by Reiki's advocates. Before any claims can be made about Reiki's effectiveness, it is imperative that "chi energy" be proven to exist. Until that time, Reiki is an unverified belief in the supernatural and can't be considered a valid system of healing, regardless of who endorses it or how powerfully they believe in its power. The supernatural component of Reiki is underscored by the fact that its founder "discovered" it not through controlled experiment but through meditation--a metaphysical epiphany, in other words.

Alternatively, Reiki's advocates are welcome to abandon their claims about "chi energy" and argue instead that Reiki affects the release of endorphins, but even this must be supported through experiment and evidence. So far, there is only limited and tentative data supporting this claim, and much more is required. Also, even if we accept that Reiki can influence endorphins, Reiki's advocates must still explain how Reiki can heal at a distance, as it is currently alleged to do.

Does this answer your question? The gist of it is that, because Reiki's claims, if true, would be so revolutionary that we absolutely can't accept a study performed by a group with a vested interest in Reiki's acceptance. In contrast, even a revolutionary new drug works according to well-understood biology, so the demand for independent confirmation is somewhat less.

[Celebration]

50. Hmmm

There is a dearth of evidence in western universities about the existence of chi, because it isn't studied in western universities. It really does not fit into the materialistic paradigm very well, particularly the part about getting grant money to pay university overhead. If I were interested in doing studies on reiki, I would skip the chi thing altogether, and try to fit reiki into western materialism in a direct manner. I have just come to this conclusion in the last few days while posting here.

I think some good cost effective studies on reiki would be some controlled studies on hospitalization time and other things that affect the cost of health care. The only way to get insurance coverage for things like reiki would be to show cost savings. If people's hospitalization stays are shortened that is both very concrete in terms of outcome measures, and also is a useful result.

Once it is determined that reiki is a cost effective way to treat patients, then creative people who desire it and have the time and money could try to do studies to determine a mechanism, if they choose.

I am not in the business of designing or performing studies, but if there is some lurker out there that is, then consider this advice.

[Orrex]

52. Excellent! You're addressing the issue exactly as it should be addressed!

There's a tone of cynicism that doesn't really help your credibility, but we're all pals here so we can let that pass. honestly, Reiki wouldn't be difficult to test, and it's failed a large number of empirical tests already. The difficult part is performing Reiki in a manner that actually passes a test for validity.

I'm not sure that we could realistically skip the chi-angle altogether, since chi (by whatever name) is pretty central to the practice of Reiki, but you could probably get away with a study of the purely physical aspects of Reiki. Of course, that would exclude so called "distance healing," but let's jump one hurdle at a time. Also, if Reiki were verified, an exploration of its underlying mechanism (chi) would be essential, because (if it exists) it would add to our understanding of the universe.

I'd caution against using the term "materialistic paradigm" because that will only start the argument all over again, when it looks like you're honestly interested in exploring how the process might go forward. The western world adheres to a "materialistic paradigm" not out of ethnocentrism or anti-spiritualism but because of pragmatism. Yes, materialism--like any "paradigm"--has its share of warts, but materialism also makes the trains run on time and cures polio. I would argue that, pound for pound, materialism has yielded greater verifiable benefit than spiritualism, even if we only look at food production and reduced infant mortality. In short, we are able to verify the benefits (and shortcomings) of materialism, but spiritualism is entirely non-verifiable in any objective way, and therefore it's entirely in the hands of those who claim to be "enlightened" or "attuned" or "holy" or the like.

Here's another thing to consider: if Reiki really works--even as a non-materialist phenomenon, don't you think that greedy corporate interests would have found a way to license and profit from it? If, as some in this very forum have alleged, the AMA and FDA are the most unholy of unholy organizations, surely they would have secured a monopoly on every form of healing, energy-based and otherwise, that offered any hope of a profit, wouldn't they?

[Celebration]

53. greedy corporate interests

I see your point but I think it would be difficult for corporate interests to greatly profit from reiki. The only thing that I could foresee along those lines is state laws that require licensing with high entry barriers. However, I find that unlikely. The entry barriers, tops, would be the same as a massage therapist. Massage as a healing modality has been around for a couple of decades at least, and it has not been infiltrated by greedy corporate interests. I guess their could be chain health spas offering reiki and massage but that would hardly squeeze out the smaller practitioners.

As far as the studies go, I feel sure that reiki could pass the endorphins test and that would satisfy some people (of course that statement doesn't prove it). I also think some well designed studies could probably show decreased hospital stays after certain procedures or possibly reduced need for painkillers or antidepressant medication. Chi as a concept is not necessary to prove benefit from reiki. But most reiki practitioners just do their thing and don't go around trying to do studies. I know chi exists because I can feel it, in myself and others, and determine blockages, etc. (This is after a whole lot of practice.) However, I don't expect that statement would or should sway anyone. Again, the mechanism is irrelevant to the result.

[Orrex]

54. See? Maybe this whole exchange was worthwhile after all!

What I meant about the corporate interests, though, was that if they saw something to exploit in Reiki, they'd already be on it. Massage therapy is a good parallel, but AFAIK it describes itself as physical manipulations. These may, in turn, induce relaxation, but the massage therapists I've known haven't claimed anything about energy movement. Of course, others may make different claims.

If chi really does exist, and if its "balancing" can induce/aid health, then it seems reasonable to suppose that its deliberate imbalancing could induce poor health, injury, or discomfort at least. In all seriousness, I would think that a weapons contractor for the government/military would already be exploring this if it actually exists.

But if we remove the chi from Reiki, I confess that I don't see how it can function. I mean, if it can work at a distance, as some of its proponents claim, then there must be some medium of transfer. What might it be if not chi?

In any case, I find this turn of the conversation encouraging!

[Celebration]

55. exactly right

I have never tried it, and wouldn't, but see no reason why I couldn't purposely cause ill health in someone using the principles that I know. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it would be that difficult to do, and yes, it could be done at a distance. I have no idea of the mechanism involved. Some people talk about quantum this and that but to me it is a little gobbledegookish. I mean, it seems strange, but it all does work at a distance. I really can't help it that the world is stranger than we assume. I also don't expect anyone to believe this because before I tried it I would have laughed at it. I was as astounded as any other rational person to figure out that distance reiki treatments work, even after people I respected told me they work. I tried it fully expecting it not to work. Distance acupuncture can work as well, oddly enough.

As for using it for unbalancing people, yeah, I am wondering if someone hasn't done that to **** and the entire administration. In any case, let's hope our military dismisses all this as nonsense, because if I don't trust them to do good things with my telephone records I surely don't want them to go around unbalancing whomever they want at will. And no it wouldn't surpise me a bit if there weren't black ops all over this.

Now if one believes in any sort of karmic principles of cause and effect, one might say that what you project out will bounce back. That would be enough incentive to avoid anything akin to sending out energy that unbalances people, even people whom we judge to be "bad". I am staying away from all that and would not even do distance treatments at all without permission. What I do with permission is spooky enough for me.

I would recommend the book "Amazing and Wonderful Mind Machines You Can Build" by G. Harry Stine for any open minded skeptics. It is a classic book, and somewhat hard to find at a good price (although possible the last time I looked, but Amazon won't send it even if they say they will--don't bother with that). It is a very no nonsense book--nothing woo woo about it like *some* of the reiki books.

[Celebration]

56. sorry

The cheap source for the Stine book is out of stock and now the cheapest I can find it is $155.00. It is a fantastic book but not worth that price except to someone with a lot of money to burn. I actually gave three copies away to friends about a year ago so I hope they cherish them!! Amazon lists it at a decent price but they won't send it. Here is the latest on the book from a reader, whose five star review says it much better than I.

in a class by itself

This is a strange and fun little book that challenges one's understanding of the world as we are told it exists. The ideas and devices discussed herein are "impossible" or "frauds" by the standards of some. The trouble is, they work! Maybe not always and for everyone, but they work often enough for some pretty level-headed engineer types like John Campbell and G. Harry Stine to be convinced. Campbell was the famous (some would say infamous) editor of Analog magazine during its heyday, and Stine worked as an engineer in the aerospace industry. I have personally used dowsing rods and they worked for me even though I didn't believe they would work at all. (It was a very strange feeling when they moved, too.)
The book covers such things as pyramids, dowsing rods, energy wheels, and a couple of "strange machines" called the Hieronymus machine (after its inventor) and the Wishing Machine. It even delves into the realm of "symbolic machines," variations of these devices which work even if only the schematic is used. Stine discusses his introduction to these devices, his experiments with them, people's reactions to them, and directions/methods for further research. Although not mentioned in this book, other countries, such as the former USSR, researched such things heavily, and are rumored to have made some very strange and possibly dangerous strides in this field which they call "energetics."

If you think that there is no scientific basis for any of this, you are not current in cutting-edge physics (which is in turn billions of years behind the Universe itself). The work of Myron Evans in O(3) Electrodynamics, Sach's Unified Field Theory, and Michael Leyton's work in higher dimensional symmetry, among others, give plenty of theoretical basis for these beasties to function...

Those who think such things are frauds should not waste their time here. This book is for people who are rational, open-minded, and believe in the empirical part of scientific method. Try them and decide for yourself, unless you prefer to let others do all your thinking for you. Remember, all great scientific breakthroughs were fought tooth and nail by the "keepers of the status quo" of their time.

This book is for people who want to push the envelope, not hide in it.

[DemExpat]

40. Health and healing involve so much more than medicine.

It is very heartening to me to see that many medical students are becoming increasingly interested in and open to Complementary therapies.

Great article on the American Medical Students Association site:

http://www.amsa.org/humed/CAM/mededreport.cfm

It really is a paradigm shift taking place at this time.

DemEx

[onager]

41. Oh, absolutely. A quantum paradigm shift, even...

:eyes:

Many allopathic physicians now readily accept mind-body approaches such as biofeedback, music therapy, and hypnosis. These practices, once considered unconventional, have been shown to be efficacious and are now assimilated into current standards of care. iv

And who's being quoted in footnote iv?

Straus SE. NCCAM Director's Senate Testimony. 2000

That would be the Director of the National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine. A totally objective source, I'm sure. :sarcasm:

Recent trends indicate an increase in the use of CAM modalities between 1990 and 1997 from 34% to 42% of the general population.

That's a blazing 1% per year. Not exactly a "paradigm shift," IMO. And why no stats since 1997?

Also, the phrase "CAM modalities" is pretty shifty (no pun intended). That could mean just about anything. e.g., people who use herbal medicines are not necessarily the same people as the woo-woos who extol "magic water" type homeopathy. Though the Magic Water folks would certainly like for us to think so. Especially if they belong to the multi-million dollar homeopathy industry. (Now what was that again about "allopathic medicine only being concerned with the financial bottom line...?")

It is important to note the tremendous heterogeneity that exists in both content and requirement among schools. Development of a more consistent educational approach is necessary if future physicians are to be adequately prepared for their role as culturally competent, integrative medical care providers.

Good luck. "Tremendous heterogeneity" is to be expected when the practitioners can't even begin to agree on--or explain how--their mumbo-jumbo works.

Like this example, from earlier in the report:

These therapies include, but are not limited to, acupuncture, massage therapy, herbal medicines and mind-body techniques.

To take just one example, acupuncture fans usually claim that it works by "changing the flow of qi gong." As stated over and over in this thread, a good first step would be a discovery/isolation of qi gong proving that it actualy exists.

And don't even THINK of hauling out that tired old chestnut about how qi gong is like electricity or radio waves. That strays over into my line of work, and I assure you I see both of those phenomena all the time. All I need is the right test equipment.

The only place I can find Qi Gong Test Equipment is on the same sort of web pages that try to sell me Quantum Rocks to improve the sound of my stereo.

[DemExpat]

46. I didn't write up this report....

Seems to me that all of your questions and objections to lines in it could be discussed
with the medical students who wrote up this report, and the American Medical Student's Association which backs them, IMO.

My post is pointing out how some medical students are open to the growing number of people using CAM alongside conventional medicine, and are seeking to find a way to help integrate it within or alongside medicine.

I see it as a very positive paradigm switch ( :-)) in thinking, one that I actively support in discussions with people and by my use of Homeopathy and herbal medicine for 20 years - alongside use of conventional medicine - while you obviously do not support this.

I support the apparent trend - that more people are enjoying and benefiting from CAMs, and that the medical world is responding - some by being skeptical and rejecting, others seeking a more open view.

UK's NHS services and CAMs which is trying to create a health care service accommodating more (cost-effective) diversity.

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/nhs-knowledge_base/data/7800.html

DemEx

[Odin2005]

51. Any "treatment" that relies on "Mystical Energies" is not medicine...

...it's quackery and/or superstition.