I ask for a double-blind study that shows the effectiveness of Reiki, and you say:
Then in the very next post you say:
Do you understand why some feel like you aren’t arguing in good faith?
I skimmed the thread, just to make sure I have the gist, Rich2600 is claiming to be a wizard, right?
You’re welcome.
If Reiki is a placebo, then nothing has been proved but the difference in effectiveness of placebo methods. You would have to demonstrate that Reiki is NOT a placebo. You would at a minimum have to demonstrate that there is something discernable taking place between the alleged cause and the effect. Something that can be observed. You are assuming that Reiki is the cause of some effect, but there is no observation of a mechanism. The placebo effect itself is something unexplained. We don’t know why it is beneficial, exactly, but we do know that the placebo itself is not the cause of the benefit.
Your argument that acceptance is possible is pointless. There innumerable concepts that people will find acceptable without regard to any factual or logical basis. It is entirely possible that Reiki will some day be accepted as established science, whether it has any basis in fact or not. Your arguments don’t increase the likelihood that Reiki will some day be accepted science with a basis in fact.
All of your cites use the same logical fallacy. The correlation of events does not define a cause and effect relationship. Now I can only see the abstract of your latest link, but despite it’s claim of detecting a correlation, it concludes only with “These data support the possibility of a DH effect in AIDS and suggest the value of further research.” Again, simply a possibility. There was further research though. A link on that same page brought me this abstractwhich concluded “Distant healing or prayer from a distance does not appear to improve selected clinical outcomes in HIV patients who are on a combination antiretroviral therapy.” So you don’t even have substantial evidence of a correlation worth investigating.
That said, Reiki may be a very effective placebo method. That in itself can be beneficial. If you can establish that benefit, there is no need to advocate for an effect based on an unknown mechanism. If it has consistent efficacy, that will be demonstrated over time, and if there some non-placebo mechanism at work, it will eventually be discovered by the application of science. Or perhaps never discovered, but that should not make any difference.
Please note that medical research plays fast and loose with the term ‘placebo’. It may mean doing nothing, as in the case where a person’s health will improve without any treatment, it may mean giving someone a sugar pill when they know the pill has no medicinal value, it may mean giving someone a sugar pill when they do not know whether or not the pill might actually contain medicine, and it mean giving someone a sugar pill when the person believes they are receiving an actual medication. Simply stating that the results of a study show a difference between Reiki and a placebo has no meaning without careful examination of the meaning of placebo in that study.
Any study NOT double-blinded is subject to gross biases and cannot be considered valid. Too many outcomes ride on subjective opinions and humans are very good at seeing what they want to see. Double-blinding is a method to separate the true results from the ones – intentionally or not – too biased to be valid.
Ah, the Hallmark of a true non-scientist. No possible outcome can change his mind. I suggest some reading up on falsification. If you cannot conceive of a way your claim could be false, you cannot test it.
Preceeding that request? No. I have been honest and upfront, direct and consistent on my declarations.
After that post, Yes, I recognized the weakening of my validity and plainly stated - I messed up.
But as others have provided articles and studies to promote the blanket invalidity of alternative medicine, I feel no shame in declaring that although I posted that study in the wrong.
It does support alternative medicine. And therefore does support reiki.
Thanks for your comments and questions!
Tripolar, I will respond to your comments a bit later, as you have some great points.
Thank you again!
Others will come along and tell you how very wrong this is-I’m going to take a couple Tylenol 3s and try to get rid of this sudden headache.
Have you considered having a wizard shoot magic at your head?
That’s how he got the headache in the first place.
You put the lime in the coconut…
[QUOTE=Musicat]
…double-blinded…
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the link Musicat, that is all I will reference as any other comments you have posted are subject to revision or inconsistency.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Others will come along and tell you how very wrong this is.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll wait.
[QUOTE=Tripolar]
If Reiki is a placebo, then nothing has been proved but the difference in effectiveness of placebo methods. You would have to demonstrate that Reiki is NOT a placebo. You would at a minimum have to demonstrate that there is something discernable taking place between the alleged cause and the effect. Something that can be observed. You are assuming that Reiki is the cause of some effect, but there is no observation of a mechanism. The placebo effect itself is something unexplained. We don’t know why it is beneficial, exactly, but we do know that the placebo itself is not the cause of the benefit…Simply stating that the results of a study show a difference between Reiki and a placebo has no meaning without careful examination of the meaning of placebo in that study.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, I did say that placebo reiki had different results than reiki within testing. And I will follow through with that.
I’ll perform an analysis of one of the methods used for the tests which compare Reiki, to a placebo Reiki.
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.
Here is my analysis…
At 7:45 am everyday for 21 days, they subjected 4 rats in one noise controlled room to Reiki treatments with different Reiki practitioners every day, just before using stress induced noise levels to see how the rats would react. At the same time they subjected another noise control room to sham Reiki, by sham Reiki students. The real Reiki practitioners and the sham Reiki students, used the same hand positions for the same amount of time.
They then provided neither sham reiki nor real reiki to the third noise control room and applied neither to the quiet room also.
They then continued at 8:00 am everyday for 21 days, subjecting 12 of the 16 rats to 15 minutes of 90 decibels. The other 4 rats were given no white noise. This concluded the daily interraction with the rats.
After 21 days, they euthanized the rats and then cut the rat open in a fold in the peritoneum(which is a thin lining on the inside of your abdomen cavity - said to have a lining of serous which seperates out when blood turns solid - AKA coagulates) known as the mesentary(which is what connects the stomach, and other organs to the abdomen wall) to expose the vascular system or veins and arteries. They then expose and flush a vascular window, which is as “the portion of mesenteric tissue bordered by two adjacent pairs of feeding arterioles and collecting venules, and the attached intestine.”. They then slowly spread over the newly exposed area with a fluorescently dyed albumin, or a protein which is water soluble which they stabilized and kept solid so that the now fluorescent protein would be pumped inside of the vascular windows.
After it was completed, they cut out the area which they had pumped the fluorescent protein into, and examined and recorded the average amount and size of the leaks into the microvascular system. by using an intense and extreme light with a microscope to examine the damaged areas where the fluorescent protein had leaked to observe the data previously mentioned.
They repeated SAME test another time, with a brand new Reiki practitioner, and a brand new sham Reiki student.
They then AGAIN repeated this same test another time, with the same Reiki practitioner & Reiki student from the first test.
The results should now be transparent…
The bold and separation of text is mine.
Also in addition, a quick interpretation of the second study results:
Baldwin, A.L., Wagers, C. and Schwartz, G.E. Reiki improves heart rate homeostasis in laboratory rats. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 14 (4): 417-422, 2008.
Analysis:
After the Reiki treatment, the heart rate of JUST the Reiki rats in participation had significant decrease compared to the rest of the rats. This shows that Reiki has helped the stabilization of the heart rates, which is PART of homeostatis, or the stabilization of the bodies processes(nerves, organs, and the like). Reiki, nor sham reiki provided any results towards the Mycobacterium Avium subspecies Paratuberculosis(MAP) - which is the Mycobacterial pathogen which causes - “to initiate and maintain systemic infection and chronic inflammation of the intestine”.
Reiki has been advancing year by year, in medical fields and expansion of usage.
Link Cited = Reiki In Hospitals | Reiki
Articles cited within my quotation of the article:
From what I have found, from the reiki studies that have been documented professionally. Reiki only began of study as of 1989. To each outcome gives a little more funding, and a little more justification for testing and development. As time has progressed, as you can see in my articles I have posted, there have been more and more studies in the last 5 years than the entire span that reiki has been studied.
Although you are referencing an article I openly admitted that was the wrong reference, it has only provided more opportunity to expand in the alternative medical field.
Stated simply, yeah, not much evidence and not many studies, but it sure is stepping up a notch. And to not acknowledge this would be considered selective observation.
So to this specific conclusion, as scientists are getting closer and closer, and their studies are getting more and more refined - especially with the factual data that reiki is recieving more funding and more participation. Reiki, and other alternative medicinal practices, have a higher probability of being respected within the medical field, as my previously shown data has shown. Which provides facts that the acceptance of reiki within science is growing closer.
Well said sir.
But it does have more than a placebo effect as I have hopefully supported above. For others, this study will mean nothing as they do not recognize alternative medicine as valid medicine, which is fine, I am not arguing that reiki is valid medicine, I am arguing that reiki does show results beyond placebo’s, and it is being accepted, which I hopefully have supported with data.
Thank you again or all of your comments and questions.
In quick reviewal, tripolar, I do recognize that reiki acceptance within science is not factual, although i do believe it is getting there. But the reiki acceptance of the major populous has now reached an all time high, with only a brighter future available.
So now you’re going this route?
I haven’t had a chance to review the entire thread, but I don’t think you’ve been defamed. Most people here are not likely to take Reiki seriously and there isn’t much you can do about that beyond supporting your arguments with whatever facts are available. Sarcastic comments are allowed here; insults are not.
EDIT: Now that I have read the whole thread, I stand by what I wrote here. People have made sarcastic comments about the claims and the evidence you’ve posted and about your arguing style, but you have not in any way been defamed and no board rules were broken. Do not make any further comments that insult or taunt other posters.
I don’t see that acceptance of reiki within science is occurring as a result of publications like the cited rat studies, which don’t even show a definite health benefit in rats, much less humans. Reikists have, like devotees of other forms of woo, stacked up numbers of journal citations (mainly in fringe publications like the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine) to be able to claim that their woo is very sciency. As we’ve seen, though, they have grave difficulty coming up with quality studies demonstrating positive health effects in humans.
What reikists need to do to gain even a modicum of respect within the scientific (and medical) community is to concede the placebo basis of their work, and confine it to non-serious conditions where placebos may have a place. The problem is that many reiki practitioners have fixated on the idea that they can treat serious disorders (hence the reference earlier to attempts to treat mycobacterial infections). There is also the embarassing tendency of reikists to embrace numerous other forms of woo*, as in the case of this person** who buys into the claim that Max Gerson (a notorious quack) was able to cure boatloads of tuberculosis sufferers using a raw food diet.
*the principle of crank magnetism.
**she makes the interesting claim that it’s poor people who utilize “allopathic medicine” and “flashy hospitals”, but that it’s the “educated” who are turning to reiki. Beyond the rather insulting suggestion that the poor are too stupid to realize the benefits of reiki, she does have a point that highly educated people can be as susceptible to health scams as those with limited education.
I realize this is somewhat off topic and that you have acknowledged you overstated the benefits of the surgery, but for the record, you apparently don’t know what the FDA does. It approves all manner of surgical implants and devices as well as drugs. So the idea that they can’t approve some kind of gastric band product is ridiculous, and of course, such products already exist. The idea that the FDA only approves pills is just silly; there are drugs that are given by IV, inhalation, pills, injection, and other ways. While you apaprently believe drug companies are evil, there are also many huge medical technology companies who would happily pick up the slack for something that cured diabetes. After all, they’re already selling lap band type devices.
This is also just plain wrong. The FDA can approve “natural supplements.” Natural supplement makers rarely try to get FDA approval because they would be required to run legitimate double-blind studies to get that approval, and such studies would debunk their products. Instead, they sell them over-the-counter at your local grocery store and as long as they don’t make particular types of claims about what their products do, they’re OK.
The FDA does not approve specific surgeries. It approves products used in surgeries, but surgical techniques are the purview of the surgeons and maybe the relevant medical associations. The FDA basically regulates marketing and does not tell doctors how to treat patients.
If I needed a new sig, I might take this.
“Now”?..
Did you read the thread? Or more importantly, did you read my posts? As I am the only defender in this thread.
From my very first post…
[QUOTE=rich2600]
Although unacceptable by the major populus, it is still a growing culture of believers that do seek the broader understanding.
[/QUOTE]
I have not declared that it is being accepted by the major populus, I have declared it is being accepted, the members of this site have been directing my statement towards science, and the major populus.
Since I have been unclear about my statement of acceptance I will clarify it now.
It is being accepted by alternative medicine, and has been for years now, with only a progressive future, as it has been studied more on a yearly basis. This fact is worth mentioning as “acceptance”.
It is being accepted by the a significant count of the populous, as I provided articles with facts, this reception of reiki is worth declaring as “acceptance”.
I do recognize what I consider as acceptance will not be what the members of this site consider as acceptance
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I realize this is somewhat off topic…
[/QUOTE]
No problem, I brought this into the conversation, so I will defend it.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
…and that you have acknowledged you overstated the benefits of the surgery, but for the record, you apparently don’t know what the FDA does. It approves all manner of surgical implants and devices as well as drugs. So the idea that they can’t approve some kind of gastric band product is ridiculous, and of course, such products already exist.
[/QUOTE]
I did not claim gastric band was not approved by the FDA.
I claimed that the Bariatric surgery is not being accepted by the FDA, which is being performed in Brazil with a >=73% success rate.
[QUOTE=rich2600]
For instance, they have a surgery over in brazil which removes diabete’s 2.
[/QUOTE]
----and----
[QUOTE=rich2600]
Provided links to the studies, and subsequent doctors relations to these studies and procedures. The surgeries specific to these(not simplistically as gastric bypass) are NOT accepted currently by the FDA.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Marley23]
The idea that the FDA only approves pills is just silly; there are drugs that are given by IV, inhalation, pills, injection, and other ways. While you apaprently believe drug companies are evil, there are also many huge medical technology companies who would happily pick up the slack for something that cured diabetes. After all, they’re already selling lap band type devices.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t saying that the FDA ONLY approves pills. If I said that, why would I say that the FDA had not approved bariatric surgery within the same post…?
[Quote=Marley23]
The FDA does not approve specific surgeries. It approves products used in surgeries, but surgical techniques are the purview of the surgeons and maybe the relevant medical associations. The FDA basically regulates marketing and does not tell doctors how to treat patients.
[/QUOTE]
Ok.
Thank you for the clarification.
Also, since natural supplements are of this topic. Here are the associated links for dietary supplements and FDA’s involvement.
As well as the Herbal supplements, and why the FDA does not regulate them.
No worries about the sarcasm, I’ll remember that, as well as your recognition of flexibility within that statement.
Thank you for your comments!
That’s an adequate explanation of how DSHEA works to prevent proper regulation of “dietary supplements”, though this statement in the article is bollocks:
“The Chinese had successfully employed Ma Huang for 5,000 years; in the United States, it was proving fatal. Perhaps the best explanation is a lack of respect and understanding of herbs in the West: What Westerners consider herbs, the Chinese consider drugs.”
A much better explanation is that in current “Western” society, tracking, reporting and publicity about deleterious effects of supplements is incomparably better than it would have been in China thousands of years ago (in a setting where there was frequent war, rampant plagues, sepsis, malnutrition and myriad other causes of premature death, it’s unlikely that people were keeping good track of side effects of herbal medicines).
Misunderstanding of this results in statements like “The Chinese had successfully employed Ma Huang for 5,000 years”, as if no Chinese user ever had a serious reaction or died as a result of taking it*. It also goes along with the mythology that herbs/supplements are not deleterious in themselves; it’s the ignorant Western user’s fault if he/she suffers a bad result, thus, no regulation is necessary for those smart peope who use them the proper way. :rolleyes:
*the Chinese have long employed herbal mixtures to treat various ailments. One ingredient that still crops up in these mixtures are forms of the plant Aristolochia which are highly nephrotoxic and have caused severe kidney damage requiring transplantation (as well as being carcinogenic). I find it hard to believe that Chinese users historically were immune to this effect. It’s more likely that deaths attributable to Aristolochia were blamed on the patient’s disease or on other factors.
Alternative medicine (which is an oxymoron anyway) will accept anything. Can you give me an example of some drug or treatment that CAM rejected after tests showed no value?
No, any request you make will be a waste of time within this debate as you have proven your statements have no weight.
Secondly. I brought in other medical data on different levels to make points to strengthen my defense of reiki. You are requesting that I bring a brand new topic which has no validity to reiki. If you want to make a point about CAM, then do it yourself. That is the side you are on in this debate. If you are trying to get me to void your contradictions for you by answering irrelevant requests, it has not worked.
Not that any comments you will post will have any validity anyway.
His request is not without merit. If CAM has any serious level of scientific rigor, there should be examples of tests that produced negative or inconclusive results. “Everyone gets a trophy” is bad enough when applied to grammar school T-ballers; it has no place whatsoever in science.
That does not void the direct point. If you are trying to provide data to show the invalidity of CAM and reiki. Do it yourself. Why would lawyers on purpose bring data to hurt there case??