Its also not Jesus saying that, but whomever is writing it - Jesus simply says “who touched me?” It’s unclear if the author of the work is quoting Jesus recollection or assuming/been told thats what ‘musta happened’.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+5%3A21-43&version=NIV
You’re not describing faith healing, you’re describing healing done by people manipulating “life energy fields”.
Faith healing is brought about by spiritual means and faith in God.
So, since you went off the track, start coughing up the cases.
It really depends on the nature of your problem and whether or not your physician, barber-surgeon or apothecary knows his business or is just a quack. If you’re a British sailor suffering from fecal impaction then you would probably benefit greatly from the services of a skilled professional who knows how to perform enemas or manual disimpaction if necessary.
Thanks for offering an alternative POV. I’m assuming faith healing tends to be placebo, hypnosis and fraud but I’m open to other ideas.
As far as research into Reiki, I did find this, which found that reiki caused cells to grow faster (tendon and bone cells) but didn’t affect cancer cells. I have no idea how the study was done, but it was done by an MD/PhD professor at UConn and funded by the NIH.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/06/gloria_a_gronow.php
The article claims it was a tightly controlled study yet there are no details of what the controls are or what the actual results are just a declaration that they were significant.
Unfortunately, the text of the study is behind a very expensive paywall.
Yeah I know, I tried to find the original study but couldn’t.
It’s called “Effect of Human Biofield Therapy on Cancer Cells”.
She seems quite popular on the woo medical talk circuit.
i wonder if she was as skeptical as the article made her out to be.
While looking into it I did find this study.
Evaluation of Biofield Treatment Dose and Distance in a Model of Cancer Cell Death
The impression I get is they noticed some effects, but couldn’t replicate them in other studies.
Many have covered the ancient faith healers quite nicely. Their biggest friends are redactors, and letting other story tellers continue to embellish the story long after they are gone.
You on the other hand are making claims that apply to some of today’s faith healers as being legit. It seems like any thread you attach yourself to, you can continue to blow stuff out of your rear end, and when you smell up the room with it with making any claim your heart so desires, you still pretend to be surprised if someone asks for you to substantiate it. No matter how many times you are asked to back up what you just said, you simply shit and fall back in it. Quit smelling up the place, and expect to be challenged in GD.
From Randi.
There’s some real inconsistencies in the way the data was presented by the researchers.
Belief still has an effect on health, we just call it something else now: the placebo effect. There were also false correlations, where someone got better, but the treatment had nothing to do with the recovery. We have better conceptual tools to screen for them, but we still have some “treatments” that may be due to false correlations.
Medicine is still kind of a crap-shoot. Many — if not most — branded medicines exploit the placebo effect to boost their outcomes, which are sometimes not statistically significant relative to a sugar pill. Many medicines pharmaceutical companies spend so much time and money developing are barely more effective in treating a disease state than nothing, and yet have side effects that can significantly impact whatever quality of life the patient has left. (Read Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science or Bad Pharma for an accessible treatment of how medical trials are manipulated or buried.)
SSRIs, for example, come out about equal to effectiveness in treating depression to a placebo, but also have common serious side effects like suicidal ideation (ironic, given that they’re supposed to be treating depression, which makes people contemplate suicide), sexual dysfunction, and weight gain. Check out recent meta-studies of SSRIs for confirmation. Not only do we still not have a clear idea of what they actually do (there are only unproven theories as to the mechanism) but they don’t perform the function they were developed for. We might just as well be treating some conditions, particularly psychological ones, with [chants and rattles](We might as well be treating some things with [url=Feasibility and short-term outcomes of a shamanic treatment for temporomandibular joint disorders - PubMed) as medications.
A few Radio Lab shorts I’ve listened to come to mind when talking about medical treatments. The most recent one was about rabies and talked about how the Milwaukee protocol may — or may not — have been effective in saving a girl from rabies. As usual, there are links to more reading on the site, but basically they found out that the girl fit a genetic profile for resistance to rabies and unfortunately the treatment probably isn’t generalizable for all populations. Also, the actual protocol may not have had much to do with her recovery. The jury is still out on whether it’s the 21st century version of the application of a cock’s anus to a bite wound or not.
There were earlier ones about the effectiveness of the Heimlich maneuver (The technique is now considered of questionable use, he made claims that it cured things it could not possibly affect, and Heimlich proposed some “treatments” for cancer and AIDS later on in life that are undeniably screwy) and what physicians think about medical interventions (They’re very strongly against anything but pain management, calling feeding tubes torture, and resuscitation most effective for giving you a brain-dead body to hook up to machines, but useless for a good outcome).
Ask physicians, and most of them will tell you that there are four things in medicine that have saved countless lives: sterile technique, anesthesia, pain management, and the germ theory of disease, which led to vaccines and antibiotics. That’s not to say that there are no modern innovations, but that these four have had the biggest impact on health in the past, and are almost equally as important now as they were when they were first introduced, a century or more ago.
The first three, sterile technique, anesthesia, and pain management, made surgical interventions possible. Without them, surgery would be horrible butchery on a conscious and very distressed person, and would still offer almost no likelihood of recovery. Even with adherence to strict cleanliness procedures and prophylactic application of antibiotics now, there are still a non-zero number of patients who have complications from infection or sepsis post-surgery.
Honestly, the more we find out about the way bodies work, the more mysteries we find. Why does the placebo effect even exist? How many things we think of as chronic diseases are actually infections? Ulcers used to be thought to be caused by stress. They’re mostly caused by bacteria. How many health problems are caused by a modern lifestyle? Allergies might be an overreaction by the immune system to a lack of infection and injury. Systemic inflammation, probably from our food choices is a major factor in heart disease and some metabolic disorders.
In some areas, we’re a good bit above shaman healing, but in others we’re damn near as primitive. I guarantee that in 100 years, people will look back at what medicine is doing right now and scoff at the idiots who thought X could ever cure syndrome Y when it’s clearly Z that causes it, and not A.
Or in a 100 years our priests will be deriding how in the past people called ‘dokters’ had the hubris to think they could go against God’s will and how they defiled the sacred body by cutting it with sharp knives. How they tried (naturally in vain) to lengthen our God given time on earth by selling people magic potions, for large profits of course.
Sleel, great post; it is posts like this that keep me coming back to the Dope. And I think I will get Goldacre’s book.
Cecil did a great article on antidepressants and the placebo effect not too long ago that I think you’d find of interest, if you haven’t read it already.
I think many of us have always suspected pharmaceutical companies of major corruption throughout, and their medicines often not doing what they claim, and also some doing more harm than good.
Recently, in 2012 Nature did a review of chemotherapy drugs and found in 89% of the studies, they were not able to replicate the claims that the drug companies made for their drugs in making it safer and/or more effective.
“Professor B.M. Hegde, M.D., Ph.D., says that the competitive publish-or-perish climate in cancer research prompts scientists to sometimes omit unfavorable data or manipulate their results in order to assure that their grants continue.”
This link covers more of that.
Anyway, I appreciate your post, and thanks for the book recommendation, look forward to getting it.
This is not accurate. Per your link.
This is standard for testing new drugs. You test, you publish results and others attempt to replicate since there is always the possibility of
an overlooked flaw in the testing protocol, anomalies in the testing animal genetics, any number of factors that can throw off results.
Most new drugs never reach the market for the same reason.
if chemotherapy is this poor at the clinical level, why has the cure rate for so many forms of cancer so dramatically higher than a generation ago?
Heh fair enough; I was thinking of ‘overall’. That is, take 1000 sick people ill with various diseases and send 500 to (say) pre-19th century doctors, and 500 to faith healing fraudsters … and see whether, overall, the one had better outcomes than the other.
I read somewhere that for certain procedures it wasn’t until absurdly recently that you would be better off avoiding doctors - for example, childbirth allegedly had worse outcomes for doctors over nothing/midwives until the development of sulfa drugs. Obviously, for others, you would want a doctor even in ancient times - I’d rather take my chances with a bone-setting barber-surgeon than rely on prayer with a broken arm.
What I don’t know, is ‘overall’ were doctors a liability (taking into account that, as you note, there were certain procedures they could do effectively).
It may possibly have been that through much of human history relying on “faith healing” (that is, placebo effect plus doing nothing) was a rational choice, if the alternative was bleeding, blistering and purging based on the “humours” theory.
I think it was accurate enough. The full quote being: “ A 2012 review published in Nature found that 89 percent of studies on possible cancer drugs published findings that other scientists couldn’t replicate, meaning they weren’t the solid, definitive findings that move us closer to safer, more effective medications. Put another way, after all this research, the scientists had pretty much hit a dead end.”
As to “if chemotherapy is this poor at the clinical level, why has the cure rate for so many forms of cancer so dramatically higher than a generation ago?” Well, I’ll assume this is true for some cancers, and if so, I suspect it is because a few of the drugs are effective, while many or not, and for probably some of the reasons in the article that Hegde stated.
Accurate enough is not accurate at all.
There’s a huge gap between possible cancer drug and prescription.
Possible cancer drugs mean they haven’t reached the market thus are not used in treatments. It’s the norm for a new drug(of any kind) to do well in cultures but fail in lab animals thus never reaching human clinical trails.
Read this. 12 years from invention to Market.
This is if the drug is the 1 in 5,000 that makes it that far.
runner pat, how much credit would you say the new drugs get for chemotherapy compared to other ways to manage and/or treat cancer?
Just because it’s a prescription doesn’t mean it is effective. See Cecil’s report on anti-depressants, e.g…