Sorry for the triple post.
I meant “The surgeries specific to these(not simplistically as gastric bypass) are NOT accepted currently by the FDA.”
You have not established that gastric bypass and its wide acceptance in the U.S. have anything remotely to do with reiki. Nor have you established that there is an FDA ban on any surgical procedure found to have a significantly higher success rate in curing type II diabetes, that supposedly is thus not offered in the U.S. Again, this has nothing to do with reiki. It is nothing more than an undocumented distraction. Thus, Fail.*
Your track record has so far been extremely uninspiring, as the four previous links that were supposed to show us the marvels of reiki did not in any instance provide solid evidence of a health benefit. We did your work for you on those. Now you cut and paste another cavalcade of links without any presentation or discussion, expecting us to go do your work for you again.
Hurling accusations of laziness seems curiously inappropriate, not to mention hazardous to irony meters.
Here is a recent systematic review of studies of reiki.
*"RESULTS: The modified CONSORT Criteria indicated that all 12 trials meeting the inclusion criteria were lacking in at least one of the three key areas of randomization, blinding, and accountability of all patients, indicating a low quality of reporting. Nine (9) of the 12 trials detected a significant therapeutic effect of the Reiki intervention; however, using the Jadad Quality score, 11 of the 12 studies ranked “poor.”
CONCLUSIONS: The serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to address the effectiveness of Reiki over placebo."*
In other words, the existing research is crap, and the incentive to do a better job is limited by 1) the foreboding that really good studies will show that reiki itself is total crap and put a number of reikists out of work, and 2) the reluctance of decent scientists to commit serious time and money to disproving the wonders of Magickal Healing Energies.
Which of the links you Gish Galloped constitutes a high quality randomized controlled trial of reiki performed since 2009?
If there are any such trials, they’ve been kept remarkably under wraps. Must be that pernicious Big Pharma Conspiracy. 
:(:eek::dubious:
*C’mon, there are plenty of other fallacious argumentation tactics you haven’t dredged up yet - Vioxx, medical mistakes, they laughed at Galileo, etc. etc. Cut and paste us some more classics.
Hello, I am type 2 diabetic, interested in staying healthy, and I also work as a medical guinea pig … I do a lot of research on type 2 diabetes … I probably know more about it than most people on the Dope.
It is not miracle surgery that is unknown in the US, we have known about the odd effect on a percent of the patients operated upon, it is not the universal panacea for t2d, as it tends to present more problems than are normally discussed, other than the fairly high risk of death, infection, lap band slipping, and malnutrition. t2d have a fair number of interacting medical conditions that are not best addressed with bariatric procedures.
<shrug> but then again people are into instant gratification. I personally would love to not have to hork down 30 odd pills and a shot of insulin a day.
That last line was hilarious!
…You do realize that this was the same quote used above, your copy/paste skillz not as well established apparently.
Out of all of this, atleast you actually looked at an article rather than throwing down more of “oh yeah, bring it” statements…
I was hoping you may actually take the time to follow through with your previous statement of “If you’ve got any better citations to show that Magickal Healing Energies really really do work, bring 'em on. Along with evidence that the Brazilians and supplement marketers have conquered type II diabetes.”
But alas, you still think I’m trying to prove the earth is round rather than just trying to tell you it’s not flat.
I was hoping that bringing my level of respect for others opinions down to your level that we may have a civil conversation where understanding or agreeing to disagree could be probable, but to no exception, you broke that possibility.
Thanks anyway though.
Galileo was a funny dude.
Their nether regions are really smooth after surgery.
Many years ago when my brother and I were dabbling in the metaphysical (and by dabbling, I was mostly just trying to learn about it he while he was a bit more involved) he bought me as a birthday present an hour long session with a pyschic and a session with a Reiki healer. It was pleasant enough at first, what with laying on a padded table listening to relaxing music, etc. I didn’t even mind when the laying on of hands began but I would swear to this day the guy jerked off while I had my eyes closed :eek: At the time he was a good friend of my brother and I was hesitant to say anything but I did, mostly making a joke of it and admitting that I wasn’t sure that’s what had happened. Fast forward ten years and the guy IIRC was ousted from the community for some inappropriate action or another.
<snicker>
Useful repetition, as it apparently hasn’t sunk in for you yet that you cited in support of reiki a systematic review that is totally non-supportive. And my question to you based on that study also bears repeating: which of your Gish Gallop of links constitutes a quality randomized double-blind trial of reiki performed since 2009? Anything?
See post #3, something else you missed.
Another classic from the alt med playbook - the civility dodge. “You’re such meanies.” This would resonate more effectively if you hadn’t been sneering at your opponents’ “ignorance” earlier.
See, your tactic of flooding us with links and expecting us to register on another site and plow through a mess of questionably relevant offerings (your earlier offerings suggesting little hope in this regard) is essentially the same as used by other posters arguing on behalf of 9/11 conspiracies, alternative Kennedy assassination theories, the inevitable triumph of Libertarianism etc. They post links to YouTube videos, long rambling screeds on various websites and lists of books and articles - designed to impress us with their vast knowledge, but without deigning to set out a coherent argument for discussion. This approach semi-automatically generates hostile responses and seldom leads to productive discussion.
You need to do your own homework, make coherent arguments and lay off the debate fallacies.
This was pretty much my experience. I had a friend who wanted to practice on me, I went once a week for four or five weeks. It didn’t help my back pain, but it sure was nice to have someone trying to help you and I felt better after every session. Would I pay for it? No.
This is the post I’ve been waiting for Jackmannii, breaking through your calloused auto-sarcarsm was important because you don’t explain your true nature of posting. Until I actually see what your past experience have caused you to develop, I can’t truly make an argument without more narcissistic cutdowns.
So I’ll break this apart for you bit by bit so you get my point.
Do you not see the contradiction here. You asked for studies, I provided them. If you want to say “show us more studies” and then say “you flooded us with studies”… Your just being obtuse. Not productive or actually benefiting the conversation in anyway.
And the repetitive “Register” comment of yours, has absolutely no substance. I provided direct links to PDF files. And to my exact quote…
Again, automatically assuming that I am demanding you to register is your perogative, but it has actually no substance to this conversation. If I HADN’T suggested registering into the website, your extra statement then would be “these files could be tampered with”. Again, another weak argument.
You know, if you had scanned over just for a second on the links I posted because of your request. You would see MULTIPLE files with 2010 dates. Yet you cling to one study in particular, because it is what you want to hear.
To dig down to the true motivations of this board it is imperitive to get past all of your preconcieved judgments and repetitive issues you have experienced on this board. It would take me saying “You are meanies”. Since I cannot even get you to read link dates, I doubt my suggestion of civility first and narcissism later would have any effect.
If I had approached this conversation in that manner, I assume I would recieve hostile responses and negate productive discussion. But I responded to a request. The only hostile response I’m receiving is from you. I posted links because you asked for them. And now because you see a similar repetitive issue addressing a parrallel post, you are responding the same way, which is creating a non-productive discussion in and of itself.
Agreed, the Brazilian/FDA conspiracy post was a bit much, and for you to cling onto that for dear life to break my validity is understandable. That’s what skeptics do. But you missed the point completely. While you have your nose turned up at alternative medicines, the sun is blinding your eyes for the amount of external medicines available which truly are NOT being offered. Which I was hoping would develop into a point that reiki is being used in hospitals, it is actively being studied for developments and it does have results, even if it is just peaking above 50%. As I stated earlier, I’m not trying to tell you the earth is round, I’m just saying it’s not flat, meaning, you can still accept it’s existence without having to acknowledge it works.
How weird is this - I was in a **normal **hospital for a hysterectomy in March and they sent in a reiki practitioner in afterwards to give me a healing session. No, it wasn’t in California either - it was in NH. I must say, I felt better afterwards but I’m pretty sure that was the morphine pump…
Which if any of these is a randomized double-blind trial of reiki of the sort called for in the oft-quoted 2009 systematic review (which found a lack of such quality studies)? Since you’ve apparently gone to the trouble of registering on the reiki site with its bevy of citations, it should be easy enough to present it if that’s the case.
Hello?
As you’ve already called us ignorant and trolls in earlier posts, you’re correct that harping on civility now as a distraction from your inability to provide compelling evidence for reiki, is not an effective strategy.
That’s a good working definition of “placebo effect”. Which again may have its place, if available cheaply, not used as a substitute for effective therapy (especially for life-threatening conditions) and not given credence by nursing schools and academic institutions which by fostering reiki are diminishing respect for evidence-based medicine, and providing a portal for the introduction of other kinds of quackery.
By the way, the list of institutions offering reiki apparently no longer includes Catholic hospitals. You see, the Powers That Be have decided that reiki violates both the laws of science and Catholic spirituality, and thus have banned its use in hospitals on the grounds that it fosters superstition.
Really. :dubious:
Suddenly an exact copy of that specific trial is what requires you to accept it’s validity? Your standards for acceptance are confusing…
Really? Because your next few paragraphs are finally getting back to the conversation at hand, and not trying to cling onto every small detail that you can find to negate my discussion…My strategy was to get you back to the conversation, and it worked.
That would be applicable except that most studies include a placebo evaluation within the study to compare it to the tests. And from the reports I have read, the placebo evaluations had excessive invalidity.
That may seem to be a dramatic step when the catholic church had a semblence of power left within the United States borders. But for the other 70 hospitals that do offer reiki, and the future hospitals that will offer reiki, will it be that much of a difference?
Plus, reiki at a catholic hospital? I would require a chastity belt.
I’m pretty sure replication is the bedrock upon which science is built. It’s your standards that are confusing. Not to mention irrelevant.
(Bolding mine.)
Look who came back out of the corner swinging! Welcome back. 
Although irrelevancy nullfies confusion…
If testing for reiki on it’s broad capacity for helping people could be simplified among 1 or 2 tests than they wouldn’t have been testing since 1989. Although replication of these tests would solidify it’s conclusion. Than you would have to replicate all the other tests which did have positive conclusions.
Ultimately, it would result in still proven data that reiki does provide results.
If replication is necessary for your specifications, on a broader scale it wouldn’t matter.
Staring at the black sheep does not discount the white.
Actually, I never left.
I was mulling over how to respond to your Gish Gallop when time passed and others responded adequately. However, I’d like to comment on all those links you threw down, and compare them to the one simple, scientific paper that I referenced.
Mine was from one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, JAMA, and described a simple test of the claim that there exists a human energy field that can be detected by other humans without any special instruments. The test was so simple that the material costs for the experiment were a total of $10 (a piece of cardboard, a towel, and a coin). It was peer-reviewed. I have observed it being replicated, although I am not aware of any formal paper describing the demonstrations I have seen.
It’s so simple that any schoolchild could do it. Indeed, a schoolchild designed and performed the test in the scholarly paper.
It did not purport to test whether Reiki or Therapeutic Touch could heal. It was designed only to test the basic claim practitioners bring forward as the explanation of why they have an ability and why they think they have a medical ability. If the bedrock claim of TT is false, it casts serious doubt on any claims derived from it.
It makes no sense to argue how it works if you can’t prove that it works. (RE: moon/cheese, etc.)
Emily Rosa’s test showed that any results claiming to detect an human energy field were no different than chance. If you can’t detect anything better than chance, then you aren’t detecting anything of value and flipping a coin is equivalent to this kind of “therapy.”
Nobody has ever come up with an experiment that has overturned Emily Rosa’s findings.
Now, on to the multiple references you supplied. While I am not qualified to examine each, nor do I have the time to analyze them when others have done this for us. The likelihood of a large number of those papers overturning science is very low and the chances of a significant discovery not very great.
And this is why. I note that your references are to journals that are obviously set up to promote an agenda, and their names alone suggest this. Journals freely using terms such as integrative, alternative, holistic, neuropathy, and complementary in their titles are in this category. Most will not accept papers that don’t align with their “principles,” and their peer review process is marginal and likely to include only those “experts” who already believe unconditionally in the theory that is being tested. They may even have a vested interest due to the products and services they sell. Just because a paper is published somewhere doesn’t mean the study was valid.
This is not science, and I will pit one good paper in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine or Nature against 100 “alternative” sources.
Remember – anything labeled “alternative” is something that has not been proven sufficiently to become part of medical knowledge. If it has been, it is no longer alternative, but real medicine. Reiki and TT is not medicine. It is superstition, and if you find personal comfort in such, go for it.
O_o
“Suddenly”? I’ve asked you to demonstrate the existence of such a trial several times now. And “an exact copy” of what? There are different ways to construct a randomized double-blind trial (basic definitions available here and here, which as previously noted would provide a much more solid way of evaluating reiki’s fairy dust pretensions. Since repeated requests for you to point out any such study have gone unanswered, we must presume you are unable to produce it, or to acknowledge that it does not exist.
This has the ring of another alt-med standby: “Your science can’t measure my woo!” (a claim that often follows failed attempts to demonstrate research that’s supposedly supportive of the woo in question).
Your usage of Gish Gallop has no reference in that I don’t see half truths or lies in this sense. I declared it works for some, and does not work for all… I’m waiting for the lies or half truths. I could see Gish Gallop being used in my statement of the Bariatric surgery, as the percentage of success is not 100%. But for the majority of your statements it just seems yet another attempt to negate my side. I could say your simplistic and culturely lead discussion has no semblence upon a discussion in alternative medicine. But this confidence enducing name game you seem to favor only supports the limited amount of receptivity you have, and will continue have in the future.
The most you have proven is that your ad hominem towards alternative methods are again “above” the principles of lesser mortals. Was this a personal moral development, just before your “mull” vegitative state you debated an article I mention and THEN saying it has no weight within your acceptance of science. That is inconsistency and negates your side immediately.
If you had mentioned that reiki suddenly popped up on the scene from an external source with no medical data, and no alternative studies…oh sorry, Weightless alternative studies. Then I could stretch to your point of view. But your justifying your opinion for what is and is not accepted.
Have you considered that medical associations accepted new forms of health enhancements from alternative medicinal studies? Apparently some have as there are hospitals that offer reiki as a treatment. I guess those hospitals haven’t met the required criteria and therefore should be avoided by those with the true acceptance of science.
Don’t hurt those knees from backpeddling.