Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
snappydragon

reikki and other healing type arts

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

eight bits
So no offered evidence is going to make sense to you? A presentation by doctors giving evidence of clinical trials, isn't science? Make this easy on me, what would you consider tangible evidence?

The purpose of "clinical trials dot gov" is to provide a directory of US clinical trials currently in progress.

Evidence is how the trial came out, not that a trial occurred.

Try searching at PubMed, for example. You are looking for peer-reviewed published stuff.

Yeah you're right, you might actually have to look something up. Instead of sitting back waiting for something to hit you, you might want to actually try to see if these had any results. You cliam an aweful lot without doing any research yourself.

Matt produced a survey of the Reiki literature. He has met his burden.

If you claim that there are published results from these trials, then it is on you to provide a citation. That is the way it works in science. Gawd, that's how it works in junior high school debate team. "Go fish" is not rebuttal.

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
So no offered evidence is going to make sense to you? A presentation by doctors giving evidence of clinical trials, isn't science? Make this easy on me, what would you consider tangible evidence?

Well the first link is an advert for their clinic and it shows a complete lack of science which makes me very dubious of them (especially since Cliff calls himself Sir). I don't doubt that trails go on. I never said they didn't.

A scientific paper published by a reputable journal with a good sample size and significant results would be nice. And for your claim, doing it just once under controlled conditions would also be nice, but such a claim can be considered extremely dubious, especially when you understand biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously
Well the first link is an advert for their clinic and it shows a complete lack of science which makes me very dubious of them (especially since Cliff calls himself Sir). I don't doubt that trails go on. I never said they didn't.

A scientific paper published by a reputable journal with a good sample size and significant results would be nice. And for your claim, doing it just once under controlled conditions would also be nice, but such a claim can be considered extremely dubious, especially when you understand biology.

Gotcha. I'll keep looking. The first link is in regards to studies that were conducted, not fanciful extrapolations. He (Cliff) calls himself Sir because he has been knighted in the UK. I'm not sure where I see the lack of science. We're talking about recently emerging studies that are being conducted to see if they have validity in regards to supplemental therapy. Also, on a political/economic note, it's hard to get clinical trials that are approved by the FDA because funding is hard to come by when there is no money to be made off of pharmacueticals. I would also like to ask, on a bit of a side note, if you have an opinion on the clinical trials that have been done by the FDA and have not been proven to yield any conclusive evidence, but been approved because of their potential for making money, i.e. flouride?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Gotcha. I'll keep looking. The first link is in regards to studies that were conducted, not fanciful extrapolations. He (Cliff) calls himself Sir because he has been knighted in the UK. I'm not sure where I see the lack of science. We're talking about recently emerging studies that are being conducted to see if they have validity in regards to supplemental therapy. Also, on a political/economic note, it's hard to get clinical trials that are approved by the FDA because funding is hard to come by when there is no money to be made off of pharmacueticals. I would also like to ask, on a bit of a side note, if you have an opinion on the clinical trials that have been done by the FDA and have not been proven to yield any conclusive evidence, but been approved because of their potential for making money, i.e. flouride?

As a UK citizen, I can promise you he hasn't.

List of British Knighthoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously

Right. Trying to find info on Cliff Saldanha. I would like to point out the the research on CAM is not being studied rigourously, espacially in relation to children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1840242...Pubmed_RVDocSum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Right. Trying to find info on Cliff Saldanha. I would like to point out the the research on CAM is not being studied rigourously, espacially in relation to children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1840242...Pubmed_RVDocSum

No it is not being studied rigorously and it should have more work done on it. But sadly most who have done it have failed to do it correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously
As a UK citizen, I can promise you he hasn't.

List of British Knighthoods.

Yeah, took someones word that he was, can't credential, as he is Indian and no site lists him as Honorarily Knighted in India either. I retract previous assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Yeah, took someones word that he was, can't credential, as he is Indian and no site lists him as Honorarily Knighted in India either. I retract previous assertion.

No problem mate, that is problem with many of these therapies. People will abuse them and it makes any study even harder to perform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously
No it is not being studied rigorously and it should have more work done on it. But sadly most who have done it have failed to do it correctly.

I am still looking in the NIH and NCBI databases. The fact that is is hardly being looked at with conclusions posted makes it difficult to provide the documentation you seek. I can tell you that my personal experiences are genuine and not embellished, though. I am trying to get a video together showing the technique of rapid emergency healing, and am waiting for response currently from pranic healer to heal while I record it. What I am seeing most through the clinicals is peoples satisfaction with MAC, no actual studies of the phenomena per se. That seems to be the reason that documentation can't be provided. It all reads more like a customer service survey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously

This is what I'm talking about. This is one of the results off of NCBI site. This doesn't even say anything really. This is why clinicals are rubbish to me sometimes, and frustrating.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1897373...Pubmed_RVDocSum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously
No problem mate, that is problem with many of these therapies. People will abuse them and it makes any study even harder to perform.

Exactly. I would also inform you, just to show that I'm not doing this as a hobby, that I am a NABP certified Pharmacy Technician, working for a PharmD. I am in the medical field every day, so I know what it takes to be convinced.

Edited for spelling.

Edited by Paul Wagner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razer0
CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the substantial use of CAM during pregnancy and the need to have all health professionals adequately informed about such therapies during this life stage.

./sarcasm on

Im sorry, that is not good enough. You need to show me, with a video (and that it has not been edited) with sound from all directions possible that it is not a hoax and indeed it may be legitimate, and of course, how it works. I want scientific proof! I then MIGHT believe in alternative uses of medicine...

./sarcasm off

You last link isn't even science (nor is your first link for that matter)

You ASKED for clinical trials, and now you want science. You want more. Come on man, youre not making it easy? Of all those links I posted, you can see for yourself that COM is widely being used with confidence, even though they cannot explain how it works. So because doctors and scientists cannot prove that it works, it means that it doesnt exist? Please. That last link literally shows you results in the beginning of the article. A 90.2% reduction of Lethargy. An 87.7 reduction of depression. Session 9 walked ¼ mile (1st time in 7 years she had walked that far). What else could possibly be the cause of this? Its like your mind doesnt want to accept it.

Edited by Razer0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
./sarcasm on

Im sorry, that is not good enough. You need to show me, with a video (and that it has not been edited) with sound from all directions possible that it is not a hoax and indeed it may be legitimate, and of course, how it works. I want scientific proof! I then MIGHT believe in alternative uses of medicine...

./sarcasm off

You ASKED for clinical trials, and now you want science. You want more. Come on man, youre not making it easy? Of all those links I posted, you can see for yourself that COM is widely being used with confidence, even though they cannot explain how it works. So because doctors and scientists cannot prove that it works, it means that it doesnt exist? Please. That last link literally shows you results in the beginning of the article. A 90.2% reduction of Lethargy. An 87.7 reduction of depression. Session 9 walked ¼ mile (1st time in 7 years she had walked that far). What else could possibly be the cause of this? Its like your mind doesnt want to accept it.

Erm a clinical trail is science.

And no if you read the analysis I put up you'll see that they where not done well enough to produce a significant report. 8 bit has the same problem with them for the same reason. They are not good enough as work.

Why should it be easy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Razer0

Why should it be hard?

That document which Paul posted showing the validation of successful alternative healing should be enough in my opinion. Wanting evidence of clinical trials will reveal the same principles with more statistics.

Im done here. I see enough evidence to know that alternative healing is as natural as your finger is attached to your hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously

I don't see any reason for hostility here guys. Matt wants hard proof, and he is right in wanting to "hold it in his hand" so to speak. The simple fact is there isn't any heavily conclusive evidence, one way or the other, yet. People are looking into it, studying it, but he's right when he says that the hard evidence isn't there. IT'S NOT. But there is something to be said that more and more people are giving credence to a concept that when applied and studied, the effects can be seen. IMO, it's sad that we have these questions, and the research is still 10-15 years down the road. It may prove to be just a form of light hypnotic suggestion, who knows? But as it stands, I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it DOES exist, and as far as I can tell, no one can prove it doesn't. I believe in what I've seen. I'm not asking that anyone take my word for what happened. What I would ask is that IF you are interested, look into it some. So please, lets be peacable here.

Much respect to all concerned. Namaste`.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

That just commonality of use of CAM, looking at the article as a whole you seem that nearly half of that CAM was massage.

Table 1 Percentage of women reporting using each type of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) during pregnancy

Type of CAM % (n) of total sample (n= 321)

Massage 49.5 (159)

Vitamins and/or minerals 30.8 (99)

Meditation 20.6 (66)

Yoga 18.4 (59)

Aromatherapy 17.5 (56)

Essential oils 17.1 (55)

Herbal remedy 10.3 (33)

Special juices 7.8 (25)

Homeopathic remedies 6.5 (21)

Western herbs 6.5 (21)

Naturopathy 5.9 (19)

Other† 2.5 (8)

Chinese herbs 1.6 (5)

†Other category answers reported by one to two women included Bach flower remedy, pilates, hypnosis, FybogelR, crystals, acidophilus powder.

As you see, no reiki or other 'spiritual' methods.

n conclusion, given the high prevalence of CAM use during pregnancy it is now time to ensure that all health professionals working with pregnant women have adequate knowledge of CAM and the associated benefits and risks of such therapies. As Gaffney and Smith note the lack of CAM education in most undergraduate and postgraduate courses for doctor and midwife training needs to be addressed. In addition, further research into usage patterns and effectiveness of CAM during pregnancy is needed to ensure an evidence base for this education.

It also mentions that these need to be looked at in greater depth into risks and benefits.

I think a good recent example of this is all the work at the moment is showing that antioxidants are in fact having no effect.

Why should it be hard?

That document which Paul posted showing the validation of successful alternative healing should be enough in my opinion. Wanting evidence of clinical trials will reveal the same principles with more statistics.

Im done here. I see enough evidence to know that alternative healing is as natural as your finger is attached to your hand

Which document? None of them have shown a valid result yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously

That just commonality of use of CAM, looking at the article as a whole you seem that nearly half of that CAM was massage.

As you see, no reiki or other 'spiritual' methods.

Maybe, but Reiki is a form of massage. It doesn't state anything other than that massage was used. It doesn't list what types. The stats aren't specific enough to draw any conclusions. It just Says"Herbs". My question would be what herbs? What type of meditation? This just isn't explicit enough to make a positive or negative statement. This is what I'm getting at. The specifics just aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics

Besides all of this, things on the internet will not be looked as evidence. It takes exprience to believe. No amount of websites, no amount of text will convince anyone who does not already believe in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously
Besides all of this, things on the internet will not be looked as evidence. It takes exprience to believe. No amount of websites, no amount of text will convince anyone who does not already believe in the first place.

I don't necessarily agree with you there. I believe that people can be convinced, but only if appraoched in an objective way. Just saying that people won't believe unless they believed in the first place is dismissive and doesn't allow for people to change. Things have to be presented, argued, discussed and researched before any conclusion can be drawn. I do agree that no one will be convinced by powerpoint presentations and Wikipedia though, that much is the gospel truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics
I don't necessarily agree with you there. I believe that people can be convinced, but only if appraoched in an objective way. Just saying that people won't believe unless they believed in the first place is dismissive and doesn't allow for people to change. Things have to be presented, argued, discussed and researched before any conclusion can be drawn. I do agree that no one will be convinced by powerpoint presentations and Wikipedia though, that much is the gospel truth.

And those are the exact thing i was thinking about. Those will not lead anyone to believe. You only have to go into some places to see. Well, some websites of believers are quite believable, I would say that much. But others are not quite so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Besides all of this, things on the internet will not be looked as evidence. It takes exprience to believe. No amount of websites, no amount of text will convince anyone who does not already believe in the first place.

If they can't show it in scientific tests then there is a problem. Experience is subjective and is not is a good way to judge the real effects of treatment.

Sceintific papers are evidence and the most up to date study shows no effect

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pauly Dangerously
If they can't show it in scientific tests then there is a problem. Experience is subjective and is not is a good way to judge the real effects of treatment.

Maybe, but even objective observation of controlled double blind experiments is someone's subjective experience. I can look at the use of anti-biotics and say that the body would have healed on its own, but once the medication has been used, there's no way to tell what would have happened otherwise. People react differently to different substances. If you say penicillin is great and saves lives, most would agree. I would disagree, because if I use it, I have a severe allergic reaction. But the retort is that it helps a lot of people, some just cant use it. The the end of the argument is it works great, most of the time. If it keeps you alive, and kills me, that's just 50/50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DrawingPics
If they can't show it in scientific tests then there is a problem. Experience is subjective and is not is a good way to judge the real effects of treatment.

Sceintific papers are evidence and the most up to date study shows no effect

I do hope you don't mind me saying, that even though I agree with you on many things regarding scientifc tests and a higher respect of your opinions than most as a scientist, I am a believer of such things as premonitions and intuition. And these things are harder, to find real proof. But I understand your view and although I will agree with your views on possibly telekinesis and to a lesser degree, towards healing, however, I would like to be more honest about my beliefs and to tell you that I am a firm believer of those I have stated. I will respect your views however, and i would like you to tell me your own views on the matter.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
Maybe, but even objective observation of controlled double blind experiments is someone's subjective experience. I can look at the use of anti-biotics and say that the body would have healed on its own, but once the medication has been used, there's no way to tell what would have happened otherwise. People react differently to different substances. If you say penicillin is great and saves lives, most would agree. I would disagree, because if I use it, I have a severe allergic reaction. But the retort is that it helps a lot of people, some just cant use it. The the end of the argument is it works great, most of the time. If it keeps you alive, and kills me, that's just 50/50.

Severe allegeric reaction is different though. It doesn't alter the effectivness of the drug. It is established that penicillin does kill bacteria. With disease you can really look into how the drug does affect the illness. That is why you have controls. Penicillian significantly shows superior results to the control and has led to a lot of fatal issues being not so (like septicemia which was formally fatal) of course we have other anti-biotics now, but they have really proven themselves to be extremely effective. Even in pain relief we can look at what alters the pain reception at a molecular level, and in trails you can see the effect of pain killers with control and placebos. Reiki etc have not shown the results that these have. Reiki also doesn't even have standardisation to what it is because there are many practitioners do not believe you should be in contact and the 'levels' have no set standards to reach them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.