Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Hi How, I'm sure most Reiki practitioners have good intentions, and I didn't suggest otherwise. However there's no escaping the bottom line, which is that reiki is no better than a placebo, medically speaking.
Clinical studies published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Vol. 56, No. 12, 2010) established that Reiki is as effective as beta blocker drugs in re-establishing optimum heart rate in subjects who have experienced acute coronary syndrome (sudden reduced blood flow to the heart accompanied with chest pain and unstable heart rate).
At the end of the day, as far as the patient is concerned, what works, works. As my husband's doctor admitted, rather frankly, of conventional medicine, "50% or more of the time, we don't know why a particular treatment works - we just know that it works."
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2012
@Daozen, you're a little selective in your quoting, aren't you?
I'm not arguing the findings.
I care little for findings of this kind. If it feels good, it's doing you good, so really, I'm not too perturbed by a single report done on one profiling.
I was objecting to the manner and way you present your opinion.
That's a little blunt and frankly, a bit disrespectful and in-your-face to those who practice Reiki (or any form of energetic therapy) and to those who have submitted to Reiki treatment and found it helpful. not all those who practise Reiki are extortionate crooks, and not all those who have had Reiki are lying when they say they have felt beneficial effects as a result. Kindly be a little more thoughtful about how you phrase and present your opinion. Thanks.
Clinical studies published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Vol. 56, No. 12, 2010) established that Reiki is as effective as beta blocker drugs in re-establishing optimum heart rate in subjects who have experienced acute coronary syndrome (sudden reduced blood flow to the heart accompanied with chest pain and unstable heart rate).
I think there's been little argument as to the scientific PROOF regarding how Reiki and other energy work works. I agree with you, that there is little to no scientific Proof as to how or why it works. However, there is proof it works... but I know- you're not really interested in that aspect of 'proof'. You want the scientific whys and wherefores of the mechanics behind it; otherwise there is no "proof", so you know it's not real.
That does not mean it doesn't exist/work. That does not mean anyone else who does believe in such things, partakes in such things, or gives service of such things is merely participating in a sham or con game. And, my friend, that is exactly what you are implying when you INSIST - over and over again - that others are wrong, YOU are right, and that "Reiki and energy work is a placebo and nothing more".
OK, we get it. You are convinced. Fine. You caught us! We're busted. Nothing but con men/women we are!
Is this where we should feel shame and hang our heads in disgrace? Is this where you achieve your celebrated level of smugness and righteousness? Is there some sort of Hero status you are striving for by protecting others who may fall prey to us con-artist Reiki practitioners and energy workers? Is there a shiny badge or wall document to prove this important achievement of yours?
All sarcasm aside, I think you seriously need to check your attachment to bitterness and the need to control or dominate others' opinions. There is no other reason for your persistent and insulting manner towards the people here who may not agree with you. You could have stated your opinion without the insulting tone, once, even twice, and dropped it. But no, you aren't happy with that.
Try a little meditation (a placebo) and seek the answers. May you find Peace - and humility.
Daozen was rather abrupt and heavy handed in her first post on this thread, but she does have a point.
There is medical evidence for meditation being useful, though not much (and what exists is rather untidy). But meditation isn't a thing in itself, which is why you can't isolate it and test it.
High-quality reviews of these RCTs consistently find that meditation, as it is practised and defined in western society does not give better results than simply relaxing, for example, listening to music or taking a short nap
Wait, how can I, a true believer, come on here and agree with scientists that meditation doesn't really do anything? Because, if you'll forgive the theism, the fact that you cannot trap the Goddess in a glass vial doesn't mean she isn't there. We who choose this path accept that it's more than ticking off items on a checklist, we accept that we may feel confused or short changed or doubt our faith. We accept everything.
But people who want cures for specific ailments aren't asking the sky for answers, they're asking other human beings to help them as best we can. To do what we know works. It's a percentage game; there's only one important question, does it work?
However much one is attached to reiki or other alternative therapies, care for people whose health and lives are at stake is more important. If there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy of a therapy, it should be shouted from the highest building. People of course can discuss why the experiments don't show effectiveness, we can suggest reasons or criticise the test conditions and so on, but what we shouldn't do is to shoot the messenger.
Of course we need to be sensitive when we talk about therapies which are connected with religious beliefs, and I think that hasn't been the case on this thread, and in general, so we end up with hostilities and entrenched positions which do not reflect either our reasoning or the facts.
High-quality reviews of these RCTs consistently find that meditation, as it is practised and defined in western society does not give better results than simply relaxing, for example, listening to music or taking a short nap
That could be your problem right there. What about when as it is practiced and defined in eastern society? Where it was originated and perfected?
If you think meditation is like weight training, and you want results that say that after one hour of meditation the subject has become ten percent mentally stronger, then you will conclude that meditation is not effective. The error is in thinking that there is such a thing as meditation in the first place. We always tend to define what is happening in terms of what our mind tells us we are doing.
Actually, I have read that the Thai Forest tradition was very heavily influenced by western readings of the ancient texts. As was the development of yoga as a systematic practice.
We all have our points... I would just prefer one not repeatedly stab the others with theirs.
Also, now a days, we prefer to call them "Complimentary Therapies" not "alternative..." because no legitimate Reiki practitioner would ever suggest Reiki instead of more conventional medications or therapies. Ever. That would be a serious red flag right there.
Also, now a days, we prefer to call them "Complimentary Therapies" not "alternative..."
Ah, sorry, my mistake.
We all have our points... I would just prefer one not repeatedly stab the others with theirs.
I agree. Nor do I see test results as absolute truth; a lot of scientifically approved medicine has very flaky evidence in support of its effectiveness. And I use evening primrose extract for mild psoriasis, though the scientific literature says it's useless. I find it to be slightly more effective than the hydrocortisone cream I am prescribed.
I have my doubts about reiki as it is practiced, ironically because of my experience with the energies involved, rather than my disbelief in them. I think it probable that if it does work, genuine practitioners are much rarer than the number of people working in the industry would suggest.
lol at anyone who relies solely on scientific evidence for their field of reference
for someone that has a tibetan buddhist sounding username it is highly ironic to dismiss out of hand energy healings whilst the concept of lung, kundalini, chakras, tantra etc are so pivotal to vajrayana and esoteric buddhism
Try a little meditation (a placebo) and seek the answers.
I suppose you could describe meditation as a complimentary therapy, in which case the same difficulties would apply in trying to "prove" that it works to anyone who was skeptical.
Try a little meditation (a placebo) and seek the answers.
I suppose you could describe meditation as a complimentary therapy, in which case the same difficulties would apply in trying to "prove" that it works to anyone who was skeptical.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that there is a possibility that chi exists, and I even plan on taking some tai chi classes in the future. However, when I see stuff like the above video, I cannot help but to be skeptical.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
That guy just seems so fake to me. I was watching the video to see if any of the students moved in ways that could only happen with an external force, but from what I can see, there isn't one instance of that. And the hopping... what's up with that? That guy seems to be an anomaly even within the qi-gong/tai-chi community because most masters boast of being able to force objects over... not stimulate them into intense hopping/spinning.
personally, the more I think about it, the more lama dondrup reminds me of benny hinn.
I've heard of John Chang in the past. Rumor has it that he's had several western students in the past. There's even video of one of them (an American) floating around youtube. He practices nei-kung, which is kinda like a chi-kung alchemy. He could definitely be real.
Instead of calling them "FAKE", I prefer to say those videos are showing people "greatly exaggerating" what they may or may not be genuinely feeling as energy manipulation or forces.
I've seen these demonstrations done before (not in person myself, but on TV and as recorded by others in person) and I believe this whole "Chi power" demonstration is more of a "dance" and/or "gymnastics show" than any actual physically uncontrollable, irresistible force of chi.
I believe if it was real, they would be eager and able to demonstrate their "power of chi" on anyone randomly chosen from the audience, not just other members of their demonstration troop. THAT I have never seen done, have you?
Never and I agree.This is why I brought up Benny Hinn. His powers only work on Evangelical Christians, more specifically his followers. I've never seen Lama Dondrup use his techniques on people outside of his clique. For example, in every video I've seen of him, he uses the same students to demonstrate.
I was kinda hoping he would demonstrate on that old lady at the end. :eek:
By the way, if you're familiar with martial arts like Aikido, you'll know that during demonstrations the "uke" (one on whom the technique is being demonstrated) needs to fall in a certain way in order not to get injured, I wonder if that's (partly) the case here.
Speaking of Aikido, the founder Morihei Ueshiba was said to have quite a bit of ki power:
At best, it's placebo. At worst, it's an expensive waste of time.
@Daozen, In your opinion. You make that statement as if it were fact.
Of course it's my opinion (I said it), but I also believe it's also a fact backed by science.
That's a little blunt and frankly, a bit disrespectful and in-your-face to those who practice Reiki (or any form of energetic therapy) and to those who have submitted to Reiki treatment and found it helpful.
You say blunt; I say concise. It's a matter of style.
not all those who practise Reiki are extortionate crooks, and not all those who have had Reiki are lying when they say they have felt beneficial effects as a result.
Careful re-reading of my posts will reveal I said absolutely nothing of the sort. I said any 'effect' from reiki treatment is placebo. That's a different thing entirely to saying practitioners are deliberate frauds. On the contrary, I believe the great majority of reiki practitioners have genuinely good intentions.
But but for those in doubt, simply compare this statement from reiki.org:
"In its long history of use it has aided in healing virtually every known illness and injury including serious problems like: multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and cancer as well as skin problems, cuts, bruises, broken bones, headache, colds, flu, sore throat, sunburn, fatigue, insomnia, impotence, poor memory, lack of confidence, etc."
"The concept of ki underlying Reiki is speculative and there is no scientific evidence that it exists; a 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials concluded that "the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven."[4] The American Cancer Society[5] and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine[6] have also found that there is no clinical or scientific evidence supporting claims that Reiki is effective in the treatment of any illness."
... and draw your own conclusions. Someone is wrong here - who is it?
There still seems to be something of a catch 22 here. It seems that complimentary therapies are unlikely to work unless you go in believing they're going to work. :rolleyes:
There still seems to be something of a catch 22 here. It seems that complimentary therapies are unlikely to work unless you go in believing they're going to work. :rolleyes:
As with any medicine or treatment (regardless of whether it's currently labeled "standard" or "complimentary"), believing in it or not believing in it is a factor, but not the only factor.
Medicines people believe in can fail or succeed, and medicines people don't believe in can fail or succeed. We can work to isolate the chemical effect from the placebo effect, but the placebo effect can be important in healing.
I think "placebo effect" would be better called "confidence effect" or "belief effect," since, quite frankly, anything that heals, in medicine (including mental and emotional stimuli) should be counted as medicine.
Fortunately, Western doctors today are taking the patient's emotional and confidence factors more and more into consideration as genuine component of treatment.
We can work to isolate the chemical effect from the placebo effect, but the placebo effect can be important in healing.
But I think with conventional drug treatments they do double-blind trials to specifically exclude the placebo affect. So a successful trial would prove the drugs effective regardless of whether or not the patient believed they were going to work. Whereas with complimentary therapy it does seem to matter whether or not the patient believes ( has confidence ).
But I think with conventional drug treatments they do double-blind trials to specifically exclude the placebo affect. So a successful trial would prove the drugs effective regardless of whether or not the patient believed they were going to work. Whereas with complimentary therapy it does seem to matter whether or not the patient believes ( has confidence ).
Absolutely--one can (attempt to) test for both qualities, although frame of mind will always have some effect, and not every drug works on every patient--there are just too many variations and variables. But we can certainly talk percentages.
One of the problems in these discussions is that we divide therapies into "standard" and "complimentary." Would you consider arnica (often found as a homeopathic gel) standard, or complimentary?
My friend Paul dropped a box on his nose (UPS guy--yes, really on his nose!), and I put arnica gel on it. He didn't believe it would work, and I wasn't so sure myself. Instead of a massive, lumpy blue-green bruise the next day, which he fully expected and dreaded, he had a nicely shrinking pink spot. Having dropped many boxes on himself in the course of his UPS service, he knew this to be an unusual outcome (especially for an infamous Nose Wound).
Just anecdotal evidence, but I don't believe it's really possible to accurately separate "standard" and "complimentary" therapies in the end - there are plenty of ineffective (or outright deadly) "standard" therapies. Some lung cancer patients improve notably with Alimta chemotherapy; some die within days after it shuts down their lungs.
So I think, with all due respect, it's problematic to say that "complimentary" therapies rely only on placebo effect, if only because we really don't have any solid agreement as to which therapies are complimentary, and which therapies are standard.
Out of curiosity, what do people here think of as complimentary therapies--homeopathy, acupuncture, medicinal herbs, diet changes, reiki, faith healing--any or none of those?
In Japan, for example, mushroom extracts are standard-issue to chemo patients. In the West, the same extracts are considered a complementary therapy.
One thing I find ironic, is that what we often call complimentary medicines generally are administered in very gentle concentrations, whereas many standard pharmaceuticals consist of (often the same) types of substances refined to such a potency that they for all practical purposes become a form of poison. Yet it's the complimentary therapies we consider "wacky."
Maybe it's simpler to just speak of a "therapy," and look at how it does (or doesn't) work.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited July 2012
@Sile Great post and I agree with you on many points. Unfortunately, we seem to find over and over again in the US that unless there's a profit incentive, nobody cares to run clinical trials. That's why, regardless of the fact that there is a strong correlation between, let's say heart health and omega 3's, there's still a nice "*These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA." disclaimer on every bottle.
Stevia is a great example of this. The 'natural' artificial sugar had a very interesting journey in America, actually.
In 1991, after receiving an anonymous industry complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import.The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which natural substances used prior to 1958, with no reported adverse effects, should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as long as the substance was being used in the same way and format as prior to 1958.
Funny how, as soon as they learned to patent it under names like "Truvia" or "PureVia" ...it's suddenly allowed in the states. Hm.
If you want to talk about complimentary therapies, I realize that massage is less controversial, but I see over and over again that people who talk to their doctor about certain musculo-skeletal issues only get recommendations of surgery or cortisol injections (which simply treat the symptom, inflammation, rather than addressing the problem causing the inflammation) instead of physical therapy or massage or lifestyle changes as a first resort. When I developed trigger finger a few years back as a result of one of my jobs, everyone kept telling me to get a cortisol injection but I was able to treat it quite nicely with some lifestyle changes and massage therapy.
For another example, I recently had an issue that I talked to a doctor about and he told me that dietary changes could not affect my issue (regardless of the fact that he refused to do a proper exam) and referred me to a surgeon! But actually, I was able to clear up the issue by adjusting my diet anyways at no cost to myself... modern medicine for ya.
Yes--it's odd how much weight the medical community gives to our ingesting plants it considers "medicine," versus plants it considers "food" All the more (sadly) hilarious when some of those are the exact same plant, delivered in different packages.
Interesting how everyone automatically starts to focus on physical healing whilst completing neglecting emotional and spiritual dimensions....oh yeah western medicine has done such a great job here
@daozen i assume therefore you pay no credence to all eastern belief and healing systems that incorporate a belief in chi of some kind, kundalini and chakras goodbye tibetan buddhism, hinduism, taoism, jainism, sikhism etc etc
From a personal perspective i would be very interested to hear an explanation as to how it is possible to have a whole body orgasm or experience tantric bliss, a scientific explanation, which can last many minutes to hours if as you say chi energy is a fictituous concoction. Perhaps it is just some very effective placebo.
Interesting how everyone automatically starts to focus on physical healing whilst completing neglecting emotional and spiritual dimensions....
Well no, that's covered by the various kinds of counselling. It may be that much of the benefit from complimentary therapy stems from the practitioner taking an interest and giving the patient time and attention - but if that's the case why not just call it "counselling"?
@daozen i assume therefore you pay no credence to all eastern belief and healing systems that incorporate a belief in chi of some kind, kundalini and chakras goodbye tibetan buddhism, hinduism, taoism, jainism, sikhism etc etc
Sure, but the operative words here are "incorporate a belief" - so it seems that belief is a requirement. To take a trivial example, if I have a headache and take some aspirin I know it's going to work - it doesn't depend on some mystical belief.
It can be (and has been) said meditation has no basis in verifiable science either. It can be said that meditation is nothing more than self-hypnosis and wish thinking. And yet, maybe you swear by it and practice meditation every day? Maybe meditation makes you feel good, centered, and will lead you to "Enlightenment"... and yet maybe you just THINK it does/will.
I think you are getting fixated on the whole money thing with Reiki and other alternative medicines. You are judging their value on what the cost is... which is exactly why there is a cost for Reiki. (in modern times - money is generally our exchange; not food, services and other barters).
I'm sorry you feel that way about alternative medicine/healing. But it's your right to limit your experiences and hand out judgments any way you see fit. Even if you're wrong.
Peace.
Meditation as a form of cognitive therapy is a fact, even though psychology isn't an exact science (it's a form of science anyway). Since no studies in exact science has been able to verify reiki or other forms of healing, I would put them in the same basket as meditation. The mind is a powerful tool. How you use it; well it doesn't really matter as long as it works. What does matter is the explanation. When we learn to meditate - whether by a formal teacher, friends or books we are told the real reason it works: restructuring of the mind. When doing healing, the healer intentionally or unintentionally tells a lie about the reason for the results - they say it's because of some kind of energy-exchange on a metaphysical level. At least the healer should add, that the results aren't verified, and that it could be just the mind helping the body.
As for the charges - in my country such services can be very expensive. That's because the healers/clairvoyants (they often mix many things) want to live off it. You can easily be charged over $ 80 for healing and $ 200 for clairvoyance.
Ramble: A tv-program on the public service channel has specialized in finding and exposing fraud. On that show it was revealed that the clairvoyants were all cheating - the program set them up by going undercover and contacting the clairvoyants. They faked dead relatives, leaking information to official sources such as the internet. The only things the clairvoyants could tell about the diseased was the things accessible to everyone through research. The show then interviewed a former clairvoyant who openly admitted he was a fraud when he practiced. He said that he got interested in the area, but quickly realized there wasn't anything in it. Really wanting it to be real, he continued to learn how to be clairvoyant and at some point convinced himself it was true. His bad consciousness made him stop after several years. Several years where clients sincerely believed he was in contact with their dead relatives. The host of the show then went on to learn the techniques by himself, went undercover again and hosted a fake session. The attendants were convinced and said the usual stuff "how could he know!" and the like. In reality, he didn't know a thing. He used pure technique - suggestive questioning and the like. This was what a professor had identified as the primary ingredient in the hidden-camera sessions with the fake relatives.
I'm just saying, that science does not show any results, all clairvoyants found on this show where frauds - IF there is such a thing as contacting the dead (which is impossible in buddhism anyway), it's damn well hidden from most of us..
You said: " Meditation as a form of cognitive therapy is a fact, even though psychology isn't an exact science (it's a form of science anyway). Since no studies in exact science has been able to verify reiki or other forms of healing, I would put them in the same basket as meditation. The mind is a powerful tool. How you use it; well it doesn't really matter as long as it works. What does matter is the explanation. When we learn to meditate - whether by a formal teacher, friends or books we are told the real reason it works: restructuring of the mind. "
I agree with most of your statements above. However, with meditation, one is not 'restructuring the mind'. One is merely changing the patterns / habits of thought.
COGNITIVE THERAPY: Cognitive therapy makes the assumption that thoughts precede moods and that false self-beliefs lead to negative emotions. Cognitive therapy aims to help the patient recognize and reassess his patterns of negative thoughts and replace them with positive thoughts that more closely reflect reality. So, It could *probably* be said that most other complimentary therapies (and meditation is considered a complimentary therapy in many medical practices) use pretty much the same process of changing negative thought patterns into more positive thought patterns; which in turn (theoretically) manifests in better, healthier mental and physical health.
We don't disagree much there, as I said. BUT, Reiki is not merely cognitive thought control or changing thought patterns. Reiki is believed to be a real and actual unblocking / revitalizing /enhancement of the body's natural chi. There is no need to convince the receiver of Reiki there is a special/different way to think or change emotional patterns. I take the stance of: one either believes in the concept of Chi, or one does not. If in doubt, give it a try (via Reiki or other Chi work) and you may be surprised, or you may not.
You also said: " When doing healing, the healer intentionally or unintentionally tells a lie about the reason for the results - they say it's because of some kind of energy-exchange on a metaphysical level. At least the healer should add, that the results aren't verified, and that it could be just the mind helping the body."
Exactly what I said just above. One either believes in the exchange on a metaphysical level (chi exists) or one doesn't. As for telling lies -- Any Reiki healer who 'guarantees results' is being unfair to the patient as well as to other Reiki practitioners. That is a red flag of a scam or someone not legitimately attuned and trained as a Reiki healer.
As for the charges - in my country such services can be very expensive. That's because the healers/clairvoyants (they often mix many things) want to live off it. You can easily be charged over $ 80 for healing and $ 200 for clairvoyance.
*sigh* All too often people like to lump Reiki practitioners and other healers/energy workers into the same pile as "clairvoyants" and "tarot readers" and "fortune tellers". Once they do that, inevitably it then turns into a discussion of rip offs and the $$ they 'steal' from (desperate, innocent) people. Please refrain from doing that. It is pretty insulting to equate Reiki practitioners with scam artists like fortune tellers.
There are many MANY people (especially in the West) who believe that acupuncture is also a scam and nothing more than BS. OK, so don't choose to go to an acupuncturist. But it's funny how I never see that tossed into the same basket as tarot readers or clairvoyants.
As far as what Reiki people charge for sessions- that fluctuates all the time. Its based on what consumers are willing to pay. It's also based on WHERE you go for sessions; because a session will cost you twice a much - or more- in a Spa setting, than if you went to someone's home for sessions. It will cost you even less if you go to a convention or large gathering somewhere that has several Reiki healers working at once and they usually charge $10-$20. I adjust my rates according to the patient. Reiki doesn't help anyone if they can't afford to get it. Any Reiki practitioner working in a private practice situation will charge you fees according to what you can afford to pay. If not, then find another Reiki practitioner. Because that is the entire premise behind Reiki - to help people.
One either believes in the exchange on a metaphysical level (chi exists) or one doesn't.
So if you're going to give somebody Reiki, would you ask them if they believe in chi?
No, because It doesn't require belief. When people ask What Is Reiki and how does it work? ... I give them an explanation - as simple and as short as possible. I often suggest they read up on it, if they like, or go to my Reiki webpage, or if they are interested I will explain further and answer more questions. But at some point they either choose to try it or not.
There is no coercion involved.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
In any case, someone requesting a Reiki treatment will almost certainly already either have done some research for themselves, or had it recommended to them by somebody whose opinion they value and trust. If they didn't value or trust that person's opinion, they wouldn't be there. Similarly, if they didn't already have an open enough mind, or willing disposition, they also wouldn't be there....
One either believes in the exchange on a metaphysical level (chi exists) or one doesn't.
So if you're going to give somebody Reiki, would you ask them if they believe in chi?
And to add: Either something exists, or it doesn't. It chi exists, and you can heal using it, everyone will be helped regardless of belief, just as everyone benefits from modern medicine (if no special circumstances apply fx allergies). You simply can't not-believe penicillin to not work. Therefore reiki-healing must be a product of belief and not a "real" phenomenon such as trees and stones and such. And therefore it is fair to compare with meditation, which also produces real change albeit not physical. I would say though, that meditation works even if you don't believe it to begin with, as training your mind to be still is like training your biceps to be strong.
Sorry for putting you in a basket with the people you call frauds, I do not want to insult. Seeing from the outside though, reiki isn't very different from so many other esoteric ideas and the practitioners often do reiki as well as numerous other stuff - even from conflicting systems. I respect that you, knowing far more about the topic, can differentiate
there's no escaping the bottom line, which is that reiki is no better than a placebo, medically speaking.
My posts have been nothing but plain statements of scientific fact.
Science utilises objective methods to assess theories - science therefore provides some security in the sense that peer reviewed results may be examined and recreated to a certain level of certainty - considering this an absolute works if one simultaneously considers it a necessary fiction - otherwise the risk is over-reliance and false security.
Taking some examples - science is broken down into specialist disciples - this allows us to more efficiently make advances - it also means that science is not good at talking to itself - so an advance in molecular biology is not considered in light of physics and maths - not for many many years after the points in biology, physics and maths are known - this means that science has immense blind spots even when the constituants of a local unified theory are present and known - the trend now is for separate areas to talk to each other but it is still very limited.
We are nowhere near being able to understand any of the complex processes that exist in our immediate locaility let alone the theoretical constructs proposed for issues beyond - when I say nowhere near, we might as well be at the start - consider that we dont even know how a phloem works.
Medicine is a specialised area of science and again knows very little about the workings of the body - the playing field is weighted towards the multinational drug companies as they hold the rights to use the base compounds - they protect these rights and the products due to profit - the route to launching a drug is long and costly, therefore only drugs with potential profit are considered - even in that process, it is hit and miss and the effects of drugs are not understood and are not cared to be understood beyond the requirement not to adversely affect profit - who cares though? you have a headache, take a paracetamol - no more headache - what did that paracetamol actually do to your system? no-one fully knows - all that is know is that it stops pain by a part understood inhibitor process and its other effects are negligible / not causally linked to the drug and therefore can't affect profit - I could go on about the industry, thought suspect it wont add more to the point.
What I'm driving at is that if it is science that you are relying on wholeheartedly then you are likely placing your faith in the same construct as a non-scientific reliance - it is your perception that lends more or less weight to either scenario.
I say this because I have no direct experience of acupuncture myself however I had a chinese friend who sustained an injury to his ankle in sport - this was plaguing him for a few months - they gave him an x-ray then an MRI or few (not sure on the latter but there were a series of non-xray scans) put him on anti-inflammatory medication, first rest and then physio - the bump went down a little, the pain remained, they couldnt see anything wrong - the prognosis was permanent nerve and ligament damage, loss of movement by x%, arthiritis when older, pain management routine - he laughed, threw away the medicine, said it was worth a shot as he was here but he didnt trust western doctors and went back to China - 2 weeks of acupuncture from a chinese master and it was cured - swelling gone, no pain, movement back to normal - no problems since.
He also gave me some acupuncture strips - little plasters with something the size of a rice grain inside, you put them on certain areas and they prevent catching cold - I laughed and put them on and missed the entire season - everyone was sniffling and coughing and nothing - months later I caught a horrendous flu and told him and he said, one of the strips must have fallen off - I checked and yep, the one on the right of my shin was gone - we put another one on and the next day it was almost like I never had the flu in the first place - didn't have a single symptom.
I also have a friend who suffers from terrible migraines - he has been on every type of super-painkiller going - they work but have side effects - he eventually tried magnet therapy given as a gift to him - he was skeptical but it worked none the less - no more pain killers - another friend who suffers from migraines dunks his head in iced water - as soon as he feels one coming on, he fills a sink and dunks his head in for as long as he can hold it - he tells me that you can feel the headache freeze up and then it's ok!! He's been doing it for years.
As the area is not regulated, it is easy for people to fake it - this doesnt mean that the entire area is nonsense - subjectively, I neither believe or not and despite this I have observed some benefit - it would be good if the separate areas could put aside profit and talk together - sure there are grains of truth on each side.
Any medicine, though, regardless of the peer-reviewed results, can only give odds, not guarantees. There is no guarantee any particular medicine will work for the patient about to receive it. With some medicines, the odds are quite high--with others, quite low.
Just as no reiki practitioner can guarantee a healing effect from reiki, no oncologist can guarantee a healing effect from Pemetrexed (Alimta).
Add to that other variables, such as some oncologists preferring this or that medication, and we can see that regardless of the name of any particular treatment, it may or may not work as hoped, and its efficacy will be effected by many things--the body chemistry of a particular patient, time of day administered, mental attitudes of patient, family, doctor and staff, patient diet, and so on.
We can state with certainty that Pemetrexed is risky, but that it seems also to dramatically help some patients, and that to date we have no idea why it appears to be deadly for some, and life-saving for others (for all we know, it could be a variation in the placebo effect). So, it doesn't make scientific sense to write it off, even though it has almost certainly been the cause of death in some cancer patients.
Because we have people who report benefit from reiki (I personally know a cancer patient who reports significantly relieved side effects) it makes no scientific sense to write it off, even if we believe the percentage is low, and even if we believe it's only "placebo effect."
In the end, healing is healing--all we are doing in the first place is getting the body to heal itself; we are not "healing the body." It doesn't matter if the trigger is mental, physical, or both.
As my husband's (Western) doc told him recently, "Bob, we don't honestly know how half of what we do works. We just know it works."
@daozen i assume therefore you pay no credence to all eastern belief and healing systems that incorporate a belief in chi of some kind, kundalini and chakras goodbye tibetan buddhism, hinduism, taoism, jainism, sikhism etc etc
Sure, but the operative words here are "incorporate a belief" - so it seems that belief is a requirement. To take a trivial example, if I have a headache and take some aspirin I know it's going to work - it doesn't depend on some mystical belief.
I was talking about the religions which incorporate a belief in chi.....it is irrelevant for a person to believe in chi and benefit from reiki, acupuncture, TCM etc
I have used it on sick and injured animals and it has a calming effect ....could this be because i am paying the animal close attention.....no otherwise others would have the same effect......placebo with animals now or perhaps i am some sort of animal whisperer?
I would add you have lived a sheltered life if you do not know anyone who has been bounced around with western Dr's and treatments to no avail yet found some benefit from a complimentary therapy
One of my clients a "middle age" greek guy, cynical as the day comes, hostile, abrasive character, sure people know the type had suffered a chronic back condition and for years had little relief from western medicine, physios, countless prescribed drugs, Dr's wanted him to undergo a somewhat risky surgery which would apparently reduce the pain but also his flexibility. His wife at a her wits end convinced him to see a TCM Dr. I repeat this guy was as far from a believer as they come. Gradually through acupuncture and moxibustion his back improved to the point now he is off all meds and goes around telling everyone how good acupuncture is.
In any case, someone requesting a Reiki treatment will almost certainly already either have done some research for themselves, or had it recommended to them by somebody whose opinion they value and trust. If they didn't value or trust that person's opinion, they wouldn't be there. Similarly, if they didn't already have an open enough mind, or willing disposition, they also wouldn't be there....
Which seems to confirm the idea that belief / faith in Reiki is an initial "requirement"?
I was talking about the religions which incorporate a belief in chi.....it is irrelevant for a person to believe in chi and benefit from reiki, acupuncture, TCM etc
I had acupuncture for quite a while and didn't find it helpful. In hindsight I've wondered if it didn't work because I didn't believe in it strongly enough. Or even whether it didn't work because the practitioner didn't believe in it strongly enough.
I was talking about the religions which incorporate a belief in chi.....it is irrelevant for a person to believe in chi and benefit from reiki, acupuncture, TCM etc
I had acupuncture for quite a while and didn't find it helpful. In hindsight I've wondered if it didn't work because I didn't believe in it strongly enough. Or even whether it didn't work because the practitioner didn't believe in it strongly enough.
I had counselling for a while......blah blah blah
You do realise that acupuncture for one does have scientific validation and that many western medicine Dr's now use acupuncture in their own practice
I was talking about the religions which incorporate a belief in chi.....it is irrelevant for a person to believe in chi and benefit from reiki, acupuncture, TCM etc
I had acupuncture for quite a while and didn't find it helpful. In hindsight I've wondered if it didn't work because I didn't believe in it strongly enough. Or even whether it didn't work because the practitioner didn't believe in it strongly enough.
I had counselling for a while......blah blah blah
You do realise that acupuncture for one does have scientific validation and that many western medicine Dr's now use acupuncture in their own practice
I agree to the acupuncture can be a real (for lack of a better word) treatment. There is physical stimulation of the body through piercing nerves. Healing with "energy" however... Well I'm skeptical... But lets leave it at that - we've had these debates as long as I've been on this forum, and we never agree...
I was talking about the religions which incorporate a belief in chi.....it is irrelevant for a person to believe in chi and benefit from reiki, acupuncture, TCM etc
I had acupuncture for quite a while and didn't find it helpful. In hindsight I've wondered if it didn't work because I didn't believe in it strongly enough. Or even whether it didn't work because the practitioner didn't believe in it strongly enough.
This issue of practitioner/physician belief is a fascinating one. Somewhere I read about mice who were handled by people who believed the mice would recover from an illness, and mice handled by people who doubted they would recover, and that the outcomes for the "believed-in" mice were significantly better. I'll try to find the reference.
Comments
At the end of the day, as far as the patient is concerned, what works, works. As my husband's doctor admitted, rather frankly, of conventional medicine, "50% or more of the time, we don't know why a particular treatment works - we just know that it works."
I'm not arguing the findings.
I care little for findings of this kind.
If it feels good, it's doing you good, so really, I'm not too perturbed by a single report done on one profiling.
I was objecting to the manner and way you present your opinion.
If by "selective", you mean I've selected a reputable scientific paper, then yes, I'm selective.
My posts have been nothing but plain statements of scientific fact. If science offends you, then frankly, that's your problem.
http://reikiinmedicine.org/pdf/jacc.pdf
@Daozen,
I think there's been little argument as to the scientific PROOF regarding how Reiki and other energy work works. I agree with you, that there is little to no scientific Proof as to how or why it works. However, there is proof it works... but I know- you're not really interested in that aspect of 'proof'.
You want the scientific whys and wherefores of the mechanics behind it; otherwise there is no "proof", so you know it's not real.
That does not mean it doesn't exist/work. That does not mean anyone else who does believe in such things, partakes in such things, or gives service of such things is merely participating in a sham or con game.
And, my friend, that is exactly what you are implying when you INSIST - over and over again - that others are wrong, YOU are right, and that "Reiki and energy work is a placebo and nothing more".
OK, we get it. You are convinced. Fine. You caught us! We're busted. Nothing but con men/women we are!
Is this where we should feel shame and hang our heads in disgrace? Is this where you achieve your celebrated level of smugness and righteousness? Is there some sort of Hero status you are striving for by protecting others who may fall prey to us con-artist Reiki practitioners and energy workers? Is there a shiny badge or wall document to prove this important achievement of yours?
All sarcasm aside, I think you seriously need to check your attachment to bitterness and the need to control or dominate others' opinions. There is no other reason for your persistent and insulting manner towards the people here who may not agree with you.
You could have stated your opinion without the insulting tone, once, even twice, and dropped it. But no, you aren't happy with that.
Try a little meditation (a placebo) and seek the answers. May you find Peace - and humility.
There is medical evidence for meditation being useful, though not much (and what exists is rather untidy). But meditation isn't a thing in itself, which is why you can't isolate it and test it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation
Wait, how can I, a true believer, come on here and agree with scientists that meditation doesn't really do anything? Because, if you'll forgive the theism, the fact that you cannot trap the Goddess in a glass vial doesn't mean she isn't there. We who choose this path accept that it's more than ticking off items on a checklist, we accept that we may feel confused or short changed or doubt our faith. We accept everything.
But people who want cures for specific ailments aren't asking the sky for answers, they're asking other human beings to help them as best we can. To do what we know works. It's a percentage game; there's only one important question, does it work?
However much one is attached to reiki or other alternative therapies, care for people whose health and lives are at stake is more important. If there is no scientific evidence for the efficacy of a therapy, it should be shouted from the highest building. People of course can discuss why the experiments don't show effectiveness, we can suggest reasons or criticise the test conditions and so on, but what we shouldn't do is to shoot the messenger.
Of course we need to be sensitive when we talk about therapies which are connected with religious beliefs, and I think that hasn't been the case on this thread, and in general, so we end up with hostilities and entrenched positions which do not reflect either our reasoning or the facts.
Actually, I have read that the Thai Forest tradition was very heavily influenced by western readings of the ancient texts. As was the development of yoga as a systematic practice.
@PrairieGhost
We all have our points... I would just prefer one not repeatedly stab the others with theirs.
Also, now a days, we prefer to call them "Complimentary Therapies" not "alternative..."
because no legitimate Reiki practitioner would ever suggest Reiki instead of more conventional medications or therapies. Ever. That would be a serious red flag right there.
I have my doubts about reiki as it is practiced, ironically because of my experience with the energies involved, rather than my disbelief in them. I think it probable that if it does work, genuine practitioners are much rarer than the number of people working in the industry would suggest.
Totally understand - and respect - your POV. Peace.
for someone that has a tibetan buddhist sounding username it is highly ironic to dismiss out of hand energy healings whilst the concept of lung, kundalini, chakras, tantra etc are so pivotal to vajrayana and esoteric buddhism
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that there is a possibility that chi exists, and I even plan on taking some tai chi classes in the future. However, when I see stuff like the above video, I cannot help but to be skeptical.
That guy just seems so fake to me. I was watching the video to see if any of the students moved in ways that could only happen with an external force, but from what I can see, there isn't one instance of that. And the hopping... what's up with that? That guy seems to be an anomaly even within the qi-gong/tai-chi community because most masters boast of being able to force objects over... not stimulate them into intense hopping/spinning.
This guy is fascinating though:
personally, the more I think about it, the more lama dondrup reminds me of benny hinn.
I've heard of John Chang in the past. Rumor has it that he's had several western students in the past. There's even video of one of them (an American) floating around youtube. He practices nei-kung, which is kinda like a chi-kung alchemy. He could definitely be real.
Instead of calling them "FAKE", I prefer to say those videos are showing people "greatly exaggerating" what they may or may not be genuinely feeling as energy manipulation or forces.
I've seen these demonstrations done before (not in person myself, but on TV and as recorded by others in person) and I believe this whole "Chi power" demonstration is more of a "dance" and/or "gymnastics show" than any actual physically uncontrollable, irresistible force of chi.
I believe if it was real, they would be eager and able to demonstrate their "power of chi" on anyone randomly chosen from the audience, not just other members of their demonstration troop. THAT I have never seen done, have you?
Never and I agree.This is why I brought up Benny Hinn. His powers only work on Evangelical Christians, more specifically his followers. I've never seen Lama Dondrup use his techniques on people outside of his clique. For example, in every video I've seen of him, he uses the same students to demonstrate.
By the way, if you're familiar with martial arts like Aikido, you'll know that during demonstrations the "uke" (one on whom the technique is being demonstrated) needs to fall in a certain way in order not to get injured, I wonder if that's (partly) the case here.
Speaking of Aikido, the founder Morihei Ueshiba was said to have quite a bit of ki power:
But but for those in doubt, simply compare this statement from reiki.org:
"In its long history of use it has aided in healing virtually every known illness and injury including serious problems like: multiple sclerosis, heart disease, and cancer as well as skin problems, cuts, bruises, broken bones, headache, colds, flu, sore throat, sunburn, fatigue, insomnia, impotence, poor memory, lack of confidence, etc."
...with this from Wikipedia:
"The concept of ki underlying Reiki is speculative and there is no scientific evidence that it exists; a 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials concluded that "the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven."[4] The American Cancer Society[5] and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine[6] have also found that there is no clinical or scientific evidence supporting claims that Reiki is effective in the treatment of any illness."
... and draw your own conclusions. Someone is wrong here - who is it?
Namaste
Medicines people believe in can fail or succeed, and medicines people don't believe in can fail or succeed. We can work to isolate the chemical effect from the placebo effect, but the placebo effect can be important in healing.
I think "placebo effect" would be better called "confidence effect" or "belief effect," since, quite frankly, anything that heals, in medicine (including mental and emotional stimuli) should be counted as medicine.
Fortunately, Western doctors today are taking the patient's emotional and confidence factors more and more into consideration as genuine component of treatment.
Whereas with complimentary therapy it does seem to matter whether or not the patient believes ( has confidence ).
One of the problems in these discussions is that we divide therapies into "standard" and "complimentary." Would you consider arnica (often found as a homeopathic gel) standard, or complimentary?
My friend Paul dropped a box on his nose (UPS guy--yes, really on his nose!), and I put arnica gel on it. He didn't believe it would work, and I wasn't so sure myself. Instead of a massive, lumpy blue-green bruise the next day, which he fully expected and dreaded, he had a nicely shrinking pink spot. Having dropped many boxes on himself in the course of his UPS service, he knew this to be an unusual outcome (especially for an infamous Nose Wound).
Just anecdotal evidence, but I don't believe it's really possible to accurately separate "standard" and "complimentary" therapies in the end - there are plenty of ineffective (or outright deadly) "standard" therapies. Some lung cancer patients improve notably with Alimta chemotherapy; some die within days after it shuts down their lungs.
So I think, with all due respect, it's problematic to say that "complimentary" therapies rely only on placebo effect, if only because we really don't have any solid agreement as to which therapies are complimentary, and which therapies are standard.
Out of curiosity, what do people here think of as complimentary therapies--homeopathy, acupuncture, medicinal herbs, diet changes, reiki, faith healing--any or none of those?
In Japan, for example, mushroom extracts are standard-issue to chemo patients. In the West, the same extracts are considered a complementary therapy.
One thing I find ironic, is that what we often call complimentary medicines generally are administered in very gentle concentrations, whereas many standard pharmaceuticals consist of (often the same) types of substances refined to such a potency that they for all practical purposes become a form of poison. Yet it's the complimentary therapies we consider "wacky."
Maybe it's simpler to just speak of a "therapy," and look at how it does (or doesn't) work.
Stevia is a great example of this. The 'natural' artificial sugar had a very interesting journey in America, actually. Funny how, as soon as they learned to patent it under names like "Truvia" or "PureVia" ...it's suddenly allowed in the states. Hm.
If you want to talk about complimentary therapies, I realize that massage is less controversial, but I see over and over again that people who talk to their doctor about certain musculo-skeletal issues only get recommendations of surgery or cortisol injections (which simply treat the symptom, inflammation, rather than addressing the problem causing the inflammation) instead of physical therapy or massage or lifestyle changes as a first resort. When I developed trigger finger a few years back as a result of one of my jobs, everyone kept telling me to get a cortisol injection but I was able to treat it quite nicely with some lifestyle changes and massage therapy.
For another example, I recently had an issue that I talked to a doctor about and he told me that dietary changes could not affect my issue (regardless of the fact that he refused to do a proper exam) and referred me to a surgeon! But actually, I was able to clear up the issue by adjusting my diet anyways at no cost to myself... modern medicine for ya.
Interesting how everyone automatically starts to focus on physical healing whilst completing neglecting emotional and spiritual dimensions....oh yeah western medicine has done such a great job here
@daozen i assume therefore you pay no credence to all eastern belief and healing systems that incorporate a belief in chi of some kind, kundalini and chakras
goodbye tibetan buddhism, hinduism, taoism, jainism, sikhism etc etc
From a personal perspective i would be very interested to hear an explanation as to how it is possible to have a whole body orgasm or experience tantric bliss, a scientific explanation, which can last many minutes to hours if as you say chi energy is a fictituous concoction. Perhaps it is just some very effective placebo.
As for the charges - in my country such services can be very expensive. That's because the healers/clairvoyants (they often mix many things) want to live off it. You can easily be charged over $ 80 for healing and $ 200 for clairvoyance.
Ramble:
A tv-program on the public service channel has specialized in finding and exposing fraud. On that show it was revealed that the clairvoyants were all cheating - the program set them up by going undercover and contacting the clairvoyants. They faked dead relatives, leaking information to official sources such as the internet.
The only things the clairvoyants could tell about the diseased was the things accessible to everyone through research. The show then interviewed a former clairvoyant who openly admitted he was a fraud when he practiced. He said that he got interested in the area, but quickly realized there wasn't anything in it. Really wanting it to be real, he continued to learn how to be clairvoyant and at some point convinced himself it was true. His bad consciousness made him stop after several years.
Several years where clients sincerely believed he was in contact with their dead relatives.
The host of the show then went on to learn the techniques by himself, went undercover again and hosted a fake session. The attendants were convinced and said the usual stuff "how could he know!" and the like. In reality, he didn't know a thing. He used pure technique - suggestive questioning and the like. This was what a professor had identified as the primary ingredient in the hidden-camera sessions with the fake relatives.
I'm just saying, that science does not show any results, all clairvoyants found on this show where frauds - IF there is such a thing as contacting the dead (which is impossible in buddhism anyway), it's damn well hidden from most of us..
You said:
" Meditation as a form of cognitive therapy is a fact, even though psychology isn't an exact science (it's a form of science anyway). Since no studies in exact science has been able to verify reiki or other forms of healing, I would put them in the same basket as meditation. The mind is a powerful tool. How you use it; well it doesn't really matter as long as it works. What does matter is the explanation. When we learn to meditate - whether by a formal teacher, friends or books we are told the real reason it works: restructuring of the mind. "
I agree with most of your statements above.
However, with meditation, one is not 'restructuring the mind'. One is merely changing the patterns / habits of thought.
COGNITIVE THERAPY: Cognitive therapy makes the assumption that thoughts precede moods and that false self-beliefs lead to negative emotions. Cognitive therapy aims to help the patient recognize and reassess his patterns of negative thoughts and replace them with positive thoughts that more closely reflect reality.
So, It could *probably* be said that most other complimentary therapies (and meditation is considered a complimentary therapy in many medical practices) use pretty much the same process of changing negative thought patterns into more positive thought patterns; which in turn (theoretically) manifests in better, healthier mental and physical health.
We don't disagree much there, as I said. BUT, Reiki is not merely cognitive thought control or changing thought patterns. Reiki is believed to be a real and actual unblocking / revitalizing /enhancement of the body's natural chi. There is no need to convince the receiver of Reiki there is a special/different way to think or change emotional patterns. I take the stance of: one either believes in the concept of Chi, or one does not. If in doubt, give it a try (via Reiki or other Chi work) and you may be surprised, or you may not.
You also said:
" When doing healing, the healer intentionally or unintentionally tells a lie about the reason for the results - they say it's because of some kind of energy-exchange on a metaphysical level. At least the healer should add, that the results aren't verified, and that it could be just the mind helping the body."
Exactly what I said just above. One either believes in the exchange on a metaphysical level (chi exists) or one doesn't. As for telling lies --
Any Reiki healer who 'guarantees results' is being unfair to the patient as well as to other Reiki practitioners. That is a red flag of a scam or someone not legitimately attuned and trained as a Reiki healer.
As for the charges - in my country such services can be very expensive. That's because the healers/clairvoyants (they often mix many things) want to live off it. You can easily be charged over $ 80 for healing and $ 200 for clairvoyance.
*sigh* All too often people like to lump Reiki practitioners and other healers/energy workers into the same pile as "clairvoyants" and "tarot readers" and "fortune tellers".
Once they do that, inevitably it then turns into a discussion of rip offs and the $$ they 'steal' from (desperate, innocent) people. Please refrain from doing that. It is pretty insulting to equate Reiki practitioners with scam artists like fortune tellers.
There are many MANY people (especially in the West) who believe that acupuncture is also a scam and nothing more than BS. OK, so don't choose to go to an acupuncturist. But it's funny how I never see that tossed into the same basket as tarot readers or clairvoyants.
As far as what Reiki people charge for sessions- that fluctuates all the time. Its based on what consumers are willing to pay. It's also based on WHERE you go for sessions; because a session will cost you twice a much - or more- in a Spa setting, than if you went to someone's home for sessions.
It will cost you even less if you go to a convention or large gathering somewhere that has several Reiki healers working at once and they usually charge $10-$20. I adjust my rates according to the patient. Reiki doesn't help anyone if they can't afford to get it. Any Reiki practitioner working in a private practice situation will charge you fees according to what you can afford to pay. If not, then find another Reiki practitioner.
Because that is the entire premise behind Reiki - to help people.
No, because It doesn't require belief. When people ask What Is Reiki and how does it work? ... I give them an explanation - as simple and as short as possible. I often suggest they read up on it, if they like, or go to my Reiki webpage, or if they are interested I will explain further and answer more questions. But at some point they either choose to try it or not.
There is no coercion involved.
Therefore reiki-healing must be a product of belief and not a "real" phenomenon such as trees and stones and such. And therefore it is fair to compare with meditation, which also produces real change albeit not physical. I would say though, that meditation works even if you don't believe it to begin with, as training your mind to be still is like training your biceps to be strong.
Sorry for putting you in a basket with the people you call frauds, I do not want to insult. Seeing from the outside though, reiki isn't very different from so many other esoteric ideas and the practitioners often do reiki as well as numerous other stuff - even from conflicting systems. I respect that you, knowing far more about the topic, can differentiate
Taking some examples - science is broken down into specialist disciples - this allows us to more efficiently make advances - it also means that science is not good at talking to itself - so an advance in molecular biology is not considered in light of physics and maths - not for many many years after the points in biology, physics and maths are known - this means that science has immense blind spots even when the constituants of a local unified theory are present and known - the trend now is for separate areas to talk to each other but it is still very limited.
We are nowhere near being able to understand any of the complex processes that exist in our immediate locaility let alone the theoretical constructs proposed for issues beyond - when I say nowhere near, we might as well be at the start - consider that we dont even know how a phloem works.
Medicine is a specialised area of science and again knows very little about the workings of the body - the playing field is weighted towards the multinational drug companies as they hold the rights to use the base compounds - they protect these rights and the products due to profit - the route to launching a drug is long and costly, therefore only drugs with potential profit are considered - even in that process, it is hit and miss and the effects of drugs are not understood and are not cared to be understood beyond the requirement not to adversely affect profit - who cares though? you have a headache, take a paracetamol - no more headache - what did that paracetamol actually do to your system? no-one fully knows - all that is know is that it stops pain by a part understood inhibitor process and its other effects are negligible / not causally linked to the drug and therefore can't affect profit - I could go on about the industry, thought suspect it wont add more to the point.
What I'm driving at is that if it is science that you are relying on wholeheartedly then you are likely placing your faith in the same construct as a non-scientific reliance - it is your perception that lends more or less weight to either scenario.
I say this because I have no direct experience of acupuncture myself however I had a chinese friend who sustained an injury to his ankle in sport - this was plaguing him for a few months - they gave him an x-ray then an MRI or few (not sure on the latter but there were a series of non-xray scans) put him on anti-inflammatory medication, first rest and then physio - the bump went down a little, the pain remained, they couldnt see anything wrong - the prognosis was permanent nerve and ligament damage, loss of movement by x%, arthiritis when older, pain management routine - he laughed, threw away the medicine, said it was worth a shot as he was here but he didnt trust western doctors and went back to China - 2 weeks of acupuncture from a chinese master and it was cured - swelling gone, no pain, movement back to normal - no problems since.
He also gave me some acupuncture strips - little plasters with something the size of a rice grain inside, you put them on certain areas and they prevent catching cold - I laughed and put them on and missed the entire season - everyone was sniffling and coughing and nothing - months later I caught a horrendous flu and told him and he said, one of the strips must have fallen off - I checked and yep, the one on the right of my shin was gone - we put another one on and the next day it was almost like I never had the flu in the first place - didn't have a single symptom.
I also have a friend who suffers from terrible migraines - he has been on every type of super-painkiller going - they work but have side effects - he eventually tried magnet therapy given as a gift to him - he was skeptical but it worked none the less - no more pain killers - another friend who suffers from migraines dunks his head in iced water - as soon as he feels one coming on, he fills a sink and dunks his head in for as long as he can hold it - he tells me that you can feel the headache freeze up and then it's ok!! He's been doing it for years.
As the area is not regulated, it is easy for people to fake it - this doesnt mean that the entire area is nonsense - subjectively, I neither believe or not and despite this I have observed some benefit - it would be good if the separate areas could put aside profit and talk together - sure there are grains of truth on each side.
Just as no reiki practitioner can guarantee a healing effect from reiki, no oncologist can guarantee a healing effect from Pemetrexed (Alimta).
Add to that other variables, such as some oncologists preferring this or that medication, and we can see that regardless of the name of any particular treatment, it may or may not work as hoped, and its efficacy will be effected by many things--the body chemistry of a particular patient, time of day administered, mental attitudes of patient, family, doctor and staff, patient diet, and so on.
We can state with certainty that Pemetrexed is risky, but that it seems also to dramatically help some patients, and that to date we have no idea why it appears to be deadly for some, and life-saving for others (for all we know, it could be a variation in the placebo effect). So, it doesn't make scientific sense to write it off, even though it has almost certainly been the cause of death in some cancer patients.
Because we have people who report benefit from reiki (I personally know a cancer patient who reports significantly relieved side effects) it makes no scientific sense to write it off, even if we believe the percentage is low, and even if we believe it's only "placebo effect."
In the end, healing is healing--all we are doing in the first place is getting the body to heal itself; we are not "healing the body." It doesn't matter if the trigger is mental, physical, or both.
As my husband's (Western) doc told him recently, "Bob, we don't honestly know how half of what we do works. We just know it works."
I have used it on sick and injured animals and it has a calming effect ....could this be because i am paying the animal close attention.....no otherwise others would have the same effect......placebo with animals now or perhaps i am some sort of animal whisperer?
One of my clients a "middle age" greek guy, cynical as the day comes, hostile, abrasive character, sure people know the type had suffered a chronic back condition and for years had little relief from western medicine, physios, countless prescribed drugs, Dr's wanted him to undergo a somewhat risky surgery which would apparently reduce the pain but also his flexibility. His wife at a her wits end convinced him to see a TCM Dr. I repeat this guy was as far from a believer as they come. Gradually through acupuncture and moxibustion his back improved to the point now he is off all meds and goes around telling everyone how good acupuncture is.
You do realise that acupuncture for one does have scientific validation and that many western medicine Dr's now use acupuncture in their own practice
But lets leave it at that - we've had these debates as long as I've been on this forum, and we never agree...