Rich2600, an important question in this sort of debate is: What evidence would be sufficient for you to change your mind?
As an aside, hospitals can do a great deal to eliminate one of the negative aspects of being hospitalized - the impersonal, frightening environment. Reassuring, touching, comforting, personalizing a patient rather than treating them as “the bypass in room 12” - good nurses and techs do this consistently. Good “bedside manner” from doctors goes a long way. Having therapeutic visits from pets, musicians, or clergy can indubitably cheer patients up. It is a shame that the positive effects of human to human interaction must be couched in superstition.
They do not agree on this - in fact the popular view that thinking positively helps you survive cancer has been taking a hit in recent years.
As one interviewee notes in the article, the notion that positive thoughts are curative amounts to blaming the patient, as if their depression or other “negative” mental state was the reason they’re not getting better.
Good that rich2600 finally condescended to discuss his supposed proof that reiki works. Oddly he has cited three studies but appears to have presented only two (one, the hugely impressive :dubious: rat homeostasis study is quoted two times). The other (from the same alt med journal*) purports to show that reiki is superior to sham reiki, but as we’ve seen there is other evidence that sham reiki works just as well as the “real” article, so we do not have convincing evidence that reiki is anything more than placebo. (I wonder about other factors, like exactly how sham and “real” reiki techniques compare, how lower blood pressure and heart rate (how much lower?) necessarily translate into greater relaxation and for how long, etc.).
If those are prime examples of what we skeptics were missing** by not dredging through rich2600’s link extravaganza, I feel better about not wasting hours of my life paging through reports of rat heart homeostasis*** and the like.
what percentage of articles in this particular journal (which also issues positive articles about other ludicrous woo like homeopathy***) present negative findings about alternative therapies? From what I’ve seen, such papers are an extreme rarity.
**anticipating an anguished rejoinder of “Those aren’t prime examples! They’re just a sample of the fantastic proof that reiki really really works!!! Here, read a couple dozen more books and articles, you nasty skeptics!!!”
***one feels an energy state not entirely unlike despair at the thought that there are researchers busily applying their time and research funds to demonstrate the channeling of healing energies to rodents.
****example of the 'homeopathic literature", which by sheer volume might impress some people who do not recognize that it represents tortured attempts to find value in magic water. Probably there are homeopathy advocates right now on Internet forums who are linking to that site, saying “See, lookit all the science that proves I’m right!!” :rolleyes:
Rarity? Try nonexistent. From the magazine’s website (all bolding mine):
[quote]
Alternative and Complementary Therapies provides the latest information on evaluating alternative therapies and integrating them into your clinical practice. Topics include: botanical medicine, vitamins and supplements, nutrition and diet, mind-body medicine,acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, ayurveda, indigenous medicine systems, homeopath, naturopathy, yoga and meditation, manual therapies, energy medicine, and spirituality and health.
Journal features include:[ul][li]Clinical applications of CAM therapies[]Profiles of innovative clinicians[]Profiles of successful new integrative clinics[]Integrative approaches for preventing and treating chronic illness[]Herbal alternatives to prescription drugs[]Mind-body approaches to disease management[]Nutraceuticals and their applications in clinical care[]Food as medicine[]The biochemistry of natural medicine[]Practical approaches to creating and expanding your holistic practice[]Legal matters[]Medical literature review[][/ul][/li][/quote]
Except perhaps for “legal matters,” it’s solid gold woo.
Hey Mufatango, thanks for the question. I did not enter into this debate to change my mind, nor others minds.
I entered into this conversation because reiki is existent, is being accepted, and is being used in hospitals. The trashing of reiki beginning in this thread was to be expected from a skeptic site, but there is skepticism, or blinded skepticism. Once alternative medicine was thrown in, watch out because everybody wants to throw there statements down and leave reiki in the dust.
I believe it should be more respected than that, talked about better than that, and debated about better than that. The conversation then developed into a debate. I was even prepared to lose, but these opponents have been calloused and judgemental from the start. When it comes to debate it’s smarter to be logical, strategic, and receptive first, THEN calloused and judgemental on all counts. Jackmannii, Musicat, and others* have been the reverse, and because of it, it has been easy to pick apart there side of the debate.
Baldwin, A.L., Schwartz, G.E. Personal Interaction with a Reiki Practitioner Decreases Noise-Induced Microvascular Damage in an Animal Model. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 12(1):15–22, 2006.
There is your second study title.
“Please don’t feed the troll.” -> Yes, that is just you Jackmannii***.
ChaoticBear
After I completely silence your two buddies, you come back around to add the same points which I had just established as being inconsistent, and invalid due to Jackmannii’s sudden poser revelation of “I loooove talking shit, but I can’t back it”.
Are you adding yourself to their ranks? Have at it sir.
By the way, hilarious Biography! I laughed.
*Expecting for Jack to grab “others” and twist it to everyone, for you that have been respectful and direct on your comments, questions and opinions, this was not referencing you and I greatly appreciate your participation.
**Don’t go and say I’m also a troll, that’s way to predictable. Although since you labeled yourself as a poser, you have been increasingly predictable, so therefore, have at it.
Your continual usage of narcissism and laziness within your responses has shown persistent troll like attributes. Therefore you are not seeking a debate*, you are seeking an emotional response. And because of this, your side immediately negates itself due to your attributes as a heckling spectator, rather than a debator. These stars are a great idea bro, except..:(…we did learn paragraphic form in 3rd grade…
****Like this stars within stars thing? I don’t get it. Anyways, I did not quote your post because you have broken your relevance within this discussion – just incase you haven’t added 1 + 1 yet.
I wanted to quickly add that Musicat,Jackmannii and the others that approached this debate in the wrong do not lack intelligence or strength as people. They are strong, intelligent individuals which I do not want seem I’m promoting my superiority over. I approached them with the utmost respect and although it was not well received, they still tried to provide arguments that simply did not work. Any direct tags I have associated with them is only in the realm of this discussion. And hopefully in future discussions. We will find better ends. Although nobody likes to lose, I still hope they have the maturity to move forward amicably. And I am subject to this as well if better Debaters come around and provide a better argument.
My point still stands. You haven’t provided a single reputable cite showing that reiki has any greater benefit than the placebo effect, and you continue to evade the questions you aren’t able to answer. And hilarious or not, your “biography” is accurate.
Chaoticbear, since you have not gotten the points as your eyes have glazed over my writing, I’ll break it down for you reeeeeeaaaal slow.
**You have no point, you are reguritating others points. You have no standing. You have no opinion. **
If, you are trying to pick up the pieces of your predecessors arguments, that means you are agreeing with all of their opinions. Because as of now, you have accepted the responsibility of their comments as well as their other attributes.
Was that to complicated? Ok.
You have made less than 5 comments, including the text I have quoted. You have not expressed what is reputable, what is acceptable, and what is or is not your beliefs. Since you are now trying to make others points for them, I will continue this conversation, assuming you are attributing all of their other judgements, presumptions, beliefs and opinions.
As I am now assuming you are referencing what is reputable from Jackmannii’s opinions(because Musicat’s were contradicting) - and since you can’t construct your own - I have not been evasive at all. I have completely addressed everybodies views exactly when they spoke. Except for Jackmannii. So if you haven’t understood why yet. I’ll make it in bold text for you.
**I did not respond to Jackmannii, because he did not back his own words first. Why should I provide an argument to a poser.He will only pose in another fashion. Just as YOU (chaoticbear) are doing right now. Posing an another failed debater with 0 opinions. **
Why should I respond to you???
Oh Mr. DosileBear. This is how you respond to compliments? How sweet.
I would hate to see you at christmas!! :D:D == “But I WANTED THE RED ONE!!”
You have provided no argument, You have provided no debate, you have provided no standing, and finally. You have no opinion. Once you figure that out. Then try to test me.
Close sir, close, but no cigar.
[QUOTE=mufatango]
With all sincerity, if you are neither trying to convince other people nor challenging your own convictions, what is the point of this conversation?
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the question, and I’m sorry if I have not responded with clarity.
Here is my point:
I added “Reiki” to clarify and the bold is mine.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
If you think it has a point, that’s just the placebo effect.
[/QUOTE]
Was this directed at me sir?
If so, my post quoting the 3 studies directly displays that Reiki DOES have an effect over SHAM Reiki, or Placebo Reiki.
If it is just a placebo affect, then these studies would not apply. But they give successful results showing the difference.
Um, it appears that only one of the three papers you cited actually measured “real” reiki vs. “sham” reiki*. And while that one paper found the “real” thing did better than pseudo-reiki, other papers have had different conclusions. There’s the paper Vinyl Turnip cited, which demonstrated that sham reiki performed as well as its “real” cousin. And here’s another, quite recent study in which the Mystical Energy Fields did not apply:
*"FINDINGS: Although Reiki therapy was statistically significant in raising the comfort and well-being of patients post-therapy, the sham Reiki placebo also was statistically significant. Patients in the standard care group did not experience changes in comfort and well-being during their infusion session.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that the presence of an RN providing one-on-one support during chemotherapy was influential in raising comfort and well-being levels, with or without an attempted healing energy field."*
Not a big shock to find that an RN “providing one-on-one” attentions might relieve some stress of undergoing a chemo session. I’d also expect better patient reviews in clinics where personnel are less harried and can devote more time to patients in general. These results do not speak to a special benefit of reiki, however.
Still waiting for rich2600 to present just one randomized, double blind study of reiki that illustrates any statistically significant benefits, as well as respond in a meaningful way to Musicat’s study debunking the “energy field” basis of reiki. (hint: labeling that study an “ad hominem” attack illustrates both a lack of evidence and a howlingly poor understanding of the term “ad hominem”).
*I’d love to see a YouTube video of researchers applying “real” vs. “sham” reiki to rodents. I can imagine protests from the more intelligent rats:
“Eeeeee! Get your hands off my snout unless you’re giving me Real Energy Fields!”
[Quote=Jackmannii]
If you’ve got any better citations to show that Magickal Healing Energies really really do work, bring 'em on.
[/QUOTE]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
As for the flood of links on reiki, I guess we should have expected another classic alt med tactic - the Gish Gallop. Instead of just regurgitating a mess of links picked up by Googling (some (all?) of which you acknowledge not having read) and expecting us to register on a pro-reiki website to see them, how about picking a few of what you think are the best ones and summarizing their conclusions, rather than expecting us to believe that your mad cut n’paste skillz are a substitute for reasoned argument?
[/Quote]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
Which of the links you Gish Galloped constitutes a high quality randomized controlled trial of reiki performed since 2009?
[/Quote]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
Which of your Gish Gallop of links constitutes a quality randomized double-blind
[/Quote]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
Which if any of these is a randomized double-blind trial of reiki..
[/Quote]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
Since repeated requests for you to point out any such study have gone unanswered…
[/Quote]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
I’m still waiting to see what randomized…
[/Quote]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
but still no convincing study presented for discussion
[/Quote]
[Quote=Jackmannii]
Still waiting for rich2600 to present just one randomized…
[/Quote]
Hey Jack, how was the bridge last night.
You can ask allllll day, eeeeeeveryday. I will not respond to you. Simple.
You haven’t demonstrated that any effect resulting from Reiki is caused by anything other than the placebo effect.
I have no objection to the utilization of placebo effects, and don’t think they should be described as ex nihilo aliquid. I don’t place much stock in the validity of accepted or alternative medical research either. The current standards allow the equivalent of the legal term suilla et panem ad manducandum accusatur. But simply noting an effect without an explanation of a causal mechanism that can be detected with consistent empirical observations is nothing like proof. You are free to believe what you choose, but your insistence on the existence of something based simply on belief and logical fallacy is unlikely to be considered seriously in this forum.
So, you are trying to convince other people that Reiki deserves respect.
Surely you would agree that there are some ideas, some schemes, some flim-flammeries that are not worthy of respect. Perhaps this is because you are aware of evidence to the contrary of claims made, or because the ideas run entirely contrary to common knowledge and supporters do not present supporting evidence.
Nevertheless, it is useful to ask: “What evidence would make me change my mind?”
E.g. “Holograph Bracelets” that the manufacturer claims increase balance, strength, and overall health. I do not believe these claims deserve any respect, since they run contrary to common knowledge of physiology and physics. Also, there is no supporting evidence for them. Nevertheless, I would be willing to consider changing my mind if there was good evidence (an independent, well-conducted experiment) showing any of those effects. Instead, all that seems available are personal testimonies and videos of the old “Applied Kinesiology” trick of pushing in slightly different vectors to convince the subject their balance or strength has changed. (Thus, I remain respect-less for these claims.)
On the flip side, I believe that Vancomycin kills staphlococcus bacteria, since I have seen personal evidence on a petri dish, under a microscope, and seen the effects of the medication on infections with positive staph cultures. I have read reports of experiments/studies on the effectiveness of Vancomycin in different types of infections. The pathopharmacology makes sense in light of current understanding of bacterial biology. Nevertheless, I would be willing to change my mind if there was good evidence (independent, well-conducted experiments) that showed that Vancomycin did NOT kill staphlococcus in the lab or in infected patients. If that were the case, many new interesting questions would arise, which would necessitate further experiments to determine why new evidence contradicts old.
So, can you imagine any evidence that would change your mind about your assertion that Reiki deserves respect? If you can, then it is only a matter of examining available evidence and discussing its importance (which scientists LOVE doing). If you cannot, then there is really no point discussing it.
I do have a question though, continual narcissism toward a topic while providing directed defamation of character towards myself and other contributors to this thread have been excessive since it’s beginning. If I can not disrespect as I have been disrespected, how should I approach such conduct?
Thank you!
Well, I see it this way. I am arguing my beliefs, yes.
I am providing documents I have to support my beliefs, yes.
I am defending the group destruction of my beliefs, yes.
Now, IF, somebody comes around and wonders why I am so aggressively debating my side. That would be to their benefit. But it is not my intention of doing so, as this is the first time I am considering it.
I see your point, my generalization is not very specific. “Should be talked/respected/debated about better than that.” But as I said before, this is a skeptic site, and expected nothing less would be foolish. Therefore, as a clarification of my generalization, I am trying to talk, respect, and debate reiki better than it has been from the beginning of this thread.
No.
There is if multiple people are trying to say it has no existence, and is not any different than a placebo.
Various forms of distant healing were included in that study, and therefore do not provide the exact Reiki double-blind study you requested. So I did not provide the exact results you wanted.
I cannot verify if reiki, was or was not included within that study, nor does the website or other documentation prove it.
Please, as others review the documents I have provided, and the document I just attached. Would you mind debating to me why, a double blind study negates the other 6 studies I have quoted, which do show reiki works, 3 of which, which works better than a placebo?
Anyways, I did not quote your post because you have broken your relevance within this discussion – just incase you haven’t added 1 + 1 yet.