Reiki is a form of healing which rests on the assumption that some form “energy” determines our health. In this context, I tend to put energy in inverted commas because it is not the energy a physicist might have in mind. It is a much more mystical entity, a form of vitality that is supposed to be essential for life and keep us going. Nobody has been able to define or quantify this “energy”, it defies scientific measurement and is biologically implausible. These circumstances render Reiki one of the least plausible therapies in the tool kit of alternative medicine.
Reiki-healers (they prefer to be called “masters”) would channel “energy” into his or her patient which, in turn, is thought to stimulate the healing process of whatever condition is being treated. In the eyes of those who believe in this sort of thing, Reiki is therefore a true panacea: it can heal everything.
The clinical evidence for or against Reiki is fairly clear – as one would expect after realising how ‘far out’ its underlying concepts are. Numerous studies are available, but most are of very poor quality. Their results tend to suggest that patients experience benefit after having Reiki but they rarely exclude the possibility that this is due to placebo or other non-specific effects. Those that are rigorous show quite clearly that Reiki is a placebo. Our own review therefore concluded that “the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition… the value of Reiki remains unproven.”
Since the publication of our article, a number of new investigations have become available. In a brand-new study, for instance, the researchers wanted to explore a Reiki therapy-training program for the care-givers of paediatric patients. A series of Reiki training classes were offered by a Reiki-master. At the completion of the program, interviews were conducted to elicit participant’s feedback regarding its effectiveness.
Seventeen families agreed to participate and 65% of them attended three Reiki training sessions. They reported that Reiki had benefited their child by improving their comfort (76%), providing relaxation (88%) and pain relief (41%). All caregivers thought that becoming an active participant in their child’s care was a major gain. The authors of this investigation conclude that “a hospital-based Reiki training program for caregivers of hospitalized pediatric patients is feasible and can positively impact patients and their families. More rigorous research regarding the benefits of Reiki in the pediatric population is needed.”
Trials like this one abound in the parallel world of “energy” medicine. In my view, such investigations do untold damage: they convince uncritical thinkers that “energy” healing is a rational and effective approach – so much so that even the military is beginning to use it.
The flaws in trials as the one above are too obvious to mention. Like most studies in this area, this new investigation proves nothing except the fact that poor quality research will mislead those who believe in its findings.
Some might say, so what? If a patient experiences benefit from a bogus yet harmless therapy, why not? I would strongly disagree with this increasingly popular view. Reiki and similarly bizarre forms of “energy” healing are well capable of causing harm.
Some fanatics might use these placebo-treatments as a true alternative to effective therapies. This would mean that the condition at hand remains untreated which, in a worst case scenario, might even lead to the death of patients. More important, in my view, is an entirely different risk: making people believe in mystic “energies” undermines rationality in a much more general sense. If this happens, the harm to society would be incalculable and extends far beyond health care.
566 Responses to Reiki: neither plausible, nor effective, nor harmless
Leave a Reply to Björn Geir Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Energy is measured in Joules. My first question for any quack discussing energy: what instrument do you use to measure the energy, and how many Joules are typically required?
Of course, if this form of energy did exist, it would violate the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, so the first good study that proves it exists is a slam-dunk for an all expenses paid trip to Stockholm.
My friend ,reiki does’nt violate the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy.A reiki healer can’t creat energy .he can transfer some of energy from his body to another body only if hi knows right procedure.
I get the impression that you are unfamiliar with the concept of energy
hiii, pl read the laws of laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy .if still you have doubt i will ‘copy paste laws
hiii pl read this.it in google search—-
Law of Conservation of Energy, Energy, Force and motion …
http://www.skwirk.com/…/law-of-conservation-of-energy/…/law-of-conservati...
Introduction. The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed from one form to another. These forms can …
sanjay
Everyone here is perfectly familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. What is in question here, however, is your understanding of the word ‘energy’.
Yaa.I know what is “energy”.I m not only reiki healar.I am a well qualified man.Reaki is my hobby,and i enjoying it.I am a scientist.ok
you do surprise me!
So, sanjay, perhaps you could explain – in scientific terms – what you believe this reiki ‘energy’ is, how it can be transferred and what the right procedures are?
I haven’t heard any reiki practitioner claiming that reiki is a physical energy. Physical energy is that explained by physics. Of course reiki need a lot of scientific studies. But reiki is said to be life force energy …. not just ‘energy’. It may be considered as an idea/word used to understand certain subjective-objective overlapped phenomena call e reiki healing.
Life force or energy, whatever you want to call it, there is no data that to back up Reiki. It’s wooo woo bullshit. Drawing symbols and using your hands to heal and place energy is unfounded
“he can transfer some of energy from his body to another body only if hi knows right procedure.”
And that procedure would be putting his hands close to someone’s body, closing his eyes and doing some wishful thinking in his head?
And how is just ‘energy’ on it’s own enough to heal? How could the ‘healer’ be sure that their ‘power’ isn’t doing something bad? I mean, a surgeon’s knife can save a person, but if the surgeon closes their eyes and waves the knife about, it’s not going to make things better.
To be scientific about it, how exactly is the energy transferred? I mean, if you hit someone, there is energy transference, or if you held your hand close to them and it was hotter than them, there may be heat transference, but how exactly is this healing ‘energy’ transferred, and how does it know exactly what to do for the good of the person being healed, bearing in mind, energy itself doesn’t ‘know’ what to do ever.
i read that as ‘my friend reiki’, i was wondering if it was a boy or girl?
sorry
That is not how it works. The Reiki Consultant is a medium through whom the the energy works. I know that Reiki heals. I have had positive reviews from hands on/close up sessions as well as absent/distant sessions.
Just because science cannot prove something it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. The soul is completely separate from the realms of man made science. All forms of spiritual healing, including Reiki, are from the soul. It’s too bad that so many scientists are atheists.
” I know that Reiki heals. I have had positive reviews from hands on/close up sessions as well as absent/distant sessions.”
The easiest person to fool is yourself.
You are living proof of that.
Hii Alan Henness
If u want to know –in scientific terms – what reiki ‘energy’ is .then remove the word “reiki” first,and try to know about the word ” Energy” and its definitions,types we need to survives,how/why it works,why we need,how we can get.how may ways are their to get,how many ways we knows,when it will not works and why,when we needs energy and much more.I cant explain much here a good /scientific reiki master can explain this .I myself tries to understand several times why it works,every time unable to get scientific answer ,but process works.A v good scientific research work needed to explain this.It is an ancient science still beyond over reach.If you are interested and want to know how/why it works learn the process and try it ,then try to know the answer.In my opinion a scientist who know reaky healing can only find the scientific answer for this.Person who doesn’t know reiki healing can not find (vaffy diffiult )scientific answer. In absence of good research work we should not give bad comments.Just take the advantage what we knows and wait for the researches .Again if it works for goodness then what is wrong.
I am against the all reiky master who takes money for healing or teaching.In absence of good research
work it is not fair,also for money they teaches everybody(may be criminal).Reiki is for good deeds only.Parson taking reiki healing should not 100 % depend on reiki ,do your duty.If you are suffering from illness ,consult your doctor and take the treatment,take the reiki as helping(due to absence of good reaserh) therapy only.
friend,i am not explaining the process.As publishing it is not good for mankind. someone can misuse it.sorry for this.
I am not a good typist ,may be their some grammar and typing errors.But i think u can understand what i meant to say.
good luck to you.You can visit my web site http://reikimaster.hpage.com/
sanjay
No, that won’t work. I know what energy is; I don’t know what you think ‘reiki energy’ is. And you – although you say you are a scientist – have not been able to explain it either. And you have not provided any good evidence that reiki works either.
I am not sure you people are spending resources in discussing with “scientist” Sanjay. In India there is a treatment dropping babies from 10 stories. And many people believe it. When I was a child my city in every “T” junction will have a “Ganesh Temple” to avoid a T Junction spirit. Then somebody try to give a “rational” explanation to me, saying how accidents are averted because of this T junction Ganesh Temple.
I said ” I believe you believe, that is the end of the story” dont try to rationalise because I am a rational person, if you are saying you are believing because it is rational then that is not belief, that is reason” I finished my cup of tea and left
Siva
Canada
Eh?
You sound like a complete møron.
Everything is energy – I dont care if your physics doesnt acknowledge that. All matter is slowed down electrons. We, as is everything, is a swirling mass of energy wave forms (torus). It stands to reason that the oscillation and wavelength of this energy can be changed or entrained to another wave form.
Reiki is chanelling pure love energy..perfection. When you receive it, your body at a cellular level receives the entrainment of pure love energy and its waves align with that.
That’s how Reiki works. And if you really believe the studies aren;t up to much, that’s because scientists are almost fully reliant on the pharmaceutical industry and governments for their funding. Why dont you simply go to a Reiki healing circle, have 6 practitioners place their hands on you and see for yourself whether your body likes it?
oh, p.s. your body is ten times more intelligent than you are.
@jane summers
You really do need to go back to basics and try to understand that there are not different kinds of physics – can I suggest this?
Jane isn’t saying that there are different kinds of physics. No suggestion needed.
It seems my book suggestion got lost somewhere, but why refer to ‘your physics’ instead of just ‘physics’?
If your issue is with the wording ‘your physics’ – you should inform Jane that noboby ‘owns’ physics. (Although, given time, there will probably be a corporate sponsor.)
But that’s probably not what she meant, either.
Perhaps Jane could tell us what she meant…
hmmm….that’s a brilliant idea! Better late than never, I suppose.
LOL!
@jane summers
Physics is a branch of science, which is not one of several ways of thinking. It’s a process that lets us get closer, step by step, to discover what is real. Our minds and sensations tell us all sorts of things that feel real, but it often turns out we are deluding ourselves. Your piffle about matter being slowed down electrons and swirling masses of energy forms (torus), about love energy and perfection and waves aligning with it is fanciful guff, not reality. What a shame your marvellous intelligence is so easily fooled by your body!
Oh yeah, physicist are funded by pharmaceuticals.
Why i’ve never though about ask a grant big pharma, i’m such an idiot !
Sorry, When your physics is different than my physics , and you dont care about it , there is no pint..Insha Allah, Save Jesus!
Stupid people.
Thank you. This Dr Ernst chap is totally condescending as well as clueless.
https://edzardernst.com/2012/12/ad-hominem-attacks-are-signs-of-victories-of-reason-over-unreason/
Ralph seems to be a tad “clueless” regarding his previous comments on Sunday 30 September 2018 at 21:17 and Sunday 30 September 2018 at 21:18.
A = B does not means C = D
“It stands to reason that the oscillation and wavelength of this energy can be changed or entrained to another waveform”
There are several errors in this statement. First, the laws of the universe are different from the observations of the universe. You saw something and explained it? Well, that is different from your ability to control it.
The problem is many people do not understand this. For example, are we not still seeing people fall for the guy calling from India saying “We are calling from the CRA/IRS, there is an arrest warrant out there for you, you must pay up now”
It’s God energy, which cannot be measured. It comes directly from God. The Reiki practitioner is merely a vessel. Reiki and healing comes to those who have stepped into the light – you may choose to one day. God Bless.
even if you were entirely correct, wouldn’t one be able to measure the effects? that’s what clinical trials are about.
Estella, first of all, randomized clinical trials are capable of even measuring that. They measure the *outcome*. Second, who tells you that the source of this “energy” is not Satan ? According to christian doctrine reiki is a heathen ritual, and therefore per definition satanic. Contrary to common belief, Satan *is* capable of doing good deeds as long as he reaches his goal. A famous critic of Medugorje put it this way: “Satan does not care about producing a few saints along his way, as long as he reaches his goals.”
Reiki has been described by Dr Mikao Usui, who rediscovered this healing energy as that used by Christ. The word Reiki means, ‘healing energy’ in Japanese. Don’t bring religion into tis discussion.
Which god?
Estella said:
Why can’t it be measured?
Whose energy is the sun? You can measure that one, whoever owns that one? I send my thanks to that particular energy owner, for letting me use it to power everything I care about.
Eh?
Alann Hennes watch out !! This is a spell !! She puts a spell on you 🙂
OK, let me see you measure it.
Ralph Maver said:
Measure what, with what and why?
So it really is nothing more than faith healing. Why not call it that? Funny, most reiki merchants are careful to disconnect from any religious associations and claim the exact opposite of what you state about it coming directly from a god. They mumble some New Age spiritual nonsense but never refer to any god.
Unless that’s your interpretation (that such a “wonderful gift” was given to you by him).
So Estella, tell me: if I don’t believe in your god, or any god for that matter, am I ineligible for reiki?
Are you high right now?
“It’s God energy, which cannot be measured”
Are you saying that Reiki is not scientific because it is beyond science?
Then why are even talking about Reiki? Some people in some countries throw a child from the 10th floor saying god will save them.
‘Some people in some countries’? Can you quote articles, or texts, and dates of publishing and name authors? Provide factual evidence.
“If it bleeds it can be killed” said the Dutch in predator. (His wise is proved because he became a governor, politics and business needs understanding of the bullshit around you)
People say about Reiki “electromagnetic” “energy” blah blah
If it is physical energy then it can be sensed and measured.
I wish they power thier home refrigerators with reiki. (Funny)
The problem with reiki is there is no objectivity. My 6 yr o can tomorrow start a reiki business. Oh..? You have a goon cartel? To control that, never mind about objectivity.
As far the harmless , if you consider other people wasting thier money and efforts as well as hopes is “not a harm” (or a benefit to people like us, we can make money from these fools) then it is “not a harm”
Fuc*in Reiki Retards do you have any facts……. no just like you have nothing
Incidentally, the big tragedy of this is that those who practise alternatives to medicine such as reiki are often terribly nice people and really desperately sincere. I consider it amassive failing of our education system that we turn out otherwise intelligent people who lack basic critical thinking skills and simple fundamental knowledge of science. There really is no excuse in the 21st Century for not understanding the fact that energy is a measurable quantity which is conserved in all interactions. It is not even remotely difficult to grasp, as a concept.
absolutely! and some of the comments by alt med enthusiasts provide embarrassing evidence of this lack of critical thinking.
While my car was being repaired recently, I had a wonderful conversation with the Service Manager about the difference between customer understanding of problems and the solid evidence-based science used by all of the workshop personnel.
Never once have the personnel suggested that a vehicle fault/problem: is due to the customer’s past life or an imbalance of the customer’s energy; can be cured by reiki, homeopathy, or the plethora of “magic devices” offered for sale on Websites.
The reason that automobiles (and all other electronic and/or mechanical devices) cannot ever be repaired by a reiki master is simply because these devices have zero reaction to placebo.
Modern cars are made of many recycled materials therefore they have had “past lives” and have had “drivers with negative energy” so I can’t wait to see the comments from reiki masters who are able to demonstrate their critical thinking skills.
Transistors (which form part of most modern appliances, especially transportation) operate at the quantum level. It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many proponents of quantum quackery for animal health yet none of the proponents are able to influence something as basic as the photon capturing physics of a digital camera.
My camera has developed a few warm pixels so does it need a replacement part to solve the problem or should I send it to a reiki master, a faith healer, a homeopath, or a quantum healing guru?
As above, I can’t wait to hear answers that demonstrate critical thinking…
i know of an energy healer who once tried to heal the engine of a bus that had broken down [i am not making this up]. the bus was full of like-minded people who watched in anticipation as she did her healing over the open bonnet. eventually they tried to re-start the engine….and it did not work. they had to be picked up by another bus.
I’m picturing a Monty Python sketch of that. Next time I get in my car I’ll say to myself “To start engine: rotate the qi in a clockwise direction.”
If this were a competition for the most bizarre Reiki story, I would put my money on this one taking home the trophy 😀
http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/rn960405.html
He could put a lot of surgeons out of work I guess.
Cannot but wonder whether there is a code in ICD-10 for it?
That reminded me of some comedy back in the 70s in one episode a young man was convinced he was able to heal car engines by faith healing and praying and after he had been away praying the engines would often start.
It turned out that his mechanically competent sister was feeling sorry for him and working on the engine while he was off praying.
I think, but can not be sure, that it was an episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show.
No, Actually physics is funded by “ACME” Cartoons and Tom and Jerry. Did you not see that “boing..”????
that is what they do to physics, sorry about that
Or, an alternative hypothesis for why Reiki does not fix cameras or cars, is that unlike people, machines do not yet possess consciousness. Until you hard core materialists can explain consciousness, how a memory of an apple, or indeed an understanding of the universe, exists in a collection of molecules neatly, perfectly (i would say miraculously) arranged in three pounds of meat you cannot imagine you have a whole picture. Go with the word mystery. Just what is reality? Information. You are operating with different information than our lovely Reiki Master writing on these pages. He invited you to experience different information. You ridiculed him for it, but honestly, ridicule is not warranted ever, or at least UNTIL you have at least attempted to experience his ‘information,” information that has helped millions of people throughout time.
And indeed, speaking of placebo, what is it? Why does placebo work as well, and sometimes better, than our best pharmaceuticals? Now there is a mystery worth exploring.
And, if you follow physics, you know that the more physicists uncover about the universe, the more questions there are; the more the one word mystery is the very best us humans can do.
aka “We don’t fully understand some stuff, therefore reiki.”
See also: Observer-expectancy effect and numerous other biases.
Sagan’s Demon Haunted World was excellent! I loved it. But…
I am also very familiar with confirmation bias. (Very. I find it fascinating.) Just like electrifying discussion of mega studies that show much of the published research articles CANNOT be replicated. For instance, the New Yorker and the NYTs recently highlighted research that demonstrated of the last fifty most cited articles on cancer protocols, only FOUR could be replicated. If you don’t think science, the hard stuff, has credibility problems, you just have the ah, erroneous or incomplete information. The whole scientific method is… faulty, a poor tool used and touted by folks like you as an arbitrator of reality. I am just suggesting that reality is probably the fuzziest concept and essentially meaningless in the way a materialist like you suggests. That explains the limits of discussions like this: Reiki real or imagined? There is no one answer.
“And, if you follow physics, you know that the more physicists uncover about the universe, the more questions there are; the more the one word mystery is the very best us humans can do.”
You may not get much of a response to your posts. Most of the readers of this blog have seen the same, or similar, positions and have seen all of them rebutted, as they always are. I and, I suspect, many others can’t be bothered by the same illogical nonsense.
“if you follow physics”
I suspect what you know about physics (real physics, not the stuff alt-meds dream up) could be written on the back of a very small postage stamp. If the output of light from stars that has interfered with by an orbiting planet and been measured, if the output from a spacecraft on the edge of the solar system can be heard, and if gravity waves can be measured, science knows more than enough to call reiki as complete and utter tripe.
You are right. I do not understand very much of physics, though I keep trying. The last three books I read on the subject were Lisa Rendells, Knocking on Heaven’s Door, Spooky Action at a Distance, by George Musser and Brain Green’s The Elegant Universe. (This in the last six months; I am, if anything, a voracious reader) I know enough physics to know I know nothing, let’s put it that way. I am, however, deeply connected to the awesome power of science as a tool for understanding our world. But directly to your point, this power still has no reasonable explanation for say, gravity. Yes, we can measure it with precision, but what the heck is it? Just like placebo. Placebo is as good, if not better than most medical interventions. But what is it? How does it work? These are more interesting questions than is Reiki real?
JJ, Firstly, there is no such thing as “spooky action at a distance” — other than in the minds of those who don’t understand 21st Century quantum mechanics. Neither energy nor information can travel faster than the speed of light, therefore, there is nothing spooky about either quantum entanglement or quantum superposition. Furthermore, Schrödinger’s cat is either dead or alive: its state is most definitely not awaiting an observer to manifest the cat’s final “quantum decoherence”.
Secondly, the only thing that *does* qualify as being “spooky” about quantum mechanics is the vast number of people on Earth who promote their favourite branch(es) of quackery by pretending that quantum mechanics is spooky, i.e., pretending to know things that they don’t know, then further pretending that science doesn’t yet know.
Thirdly, but most importantly, many things that we personally experience seem spooky/uncanny until we have finally learnt to properly comprehend the enormous difference between epistemic and ontic reality. To borrow Gordon Pennycook’s term, those who have not yet learnt this are in a state of “ontological confusion”. Current proponents of “spooky action at a distance” are exemplars of being hopelessly stuck in this state of ontological confusion.
Fourthly, we have obtained amazing fly-by images of Pluto and Charon, which clearly demonstrates the amazing number of branches of science that do actually work extremely well in practise.
Despite all of the above, we have a never ending shortage of people, such as yourself, who tell us that, because science doesn’t know everything, the mysterious energy of reiki is yet to be discovered by science therefore it cannot be dismissed. We are endlessly told this by people who are not just ignorant of modern science, these same people stubbornly refuse to own the burden of proof for their claims — they relentlessly shift their burden of proof onto their audience, which is a logical fallacy that they hope their audience won’t notice.
JJ, Reiki ‘works’ because Charon is made of homoeopathically quantum-entangled cheese, provided by the creator of the universe. Charon was discovered in 1978 — long after homeopathy and Reiki. Do you know enough science and logic to refute my theory. Rhetorical question, because if you did, you wouldn’t be posting the same tired old arguments that have been endlessly and properly refuted. The “argument from ignorance” fallacy is millennia overdue for retirement because it is the most pathetically worn out amongst all the logical fallacies.
If you actually bothered to read what I wrote you would have realized that my reference to Spooky Action at a Distance was a reference to a George Messer’s science book I had just read (title comes from Einstein’s famous quote and you’re dreaming, if you imagine that it is settled science; one of dozens of recent articles: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet-1.18255.
And IF you had bothered to read what I wrote, instead of assuming I was some new age nut case, and reacting in kind, you would have realized that I am on your side, celebrating the awesome power of science as our best tool for understanding the universe. I get it. But you don’t really read, do you? You scan, assume and leap to a challenge, anxious to demonstrate that you are superior (read smarter) to all these no nothing fuzzy thinkers responding to your blog.
I also suggested that Reiki works as any and all placebos work, (which accounts for the wide spread use of alternative medicine) and that the bigger and more interesting question is what is placebo and how the heck does it work? I suggest you read the wiki page on placebo for an enlightening discussion.
Finally, I suggested that there is a problem in our scientific method. Replication (the important step in establishing fact, especially in medical studies) has recently been shown to be quite problematic. FEW scientific studies, published journal articles, can in fact be replicated.
Rather than your tiresome smear that I am producing fallacies, these are interesting and deep issues.
May the force be with you…
@jjflowers
“But directly to your point, this power still has no reasonable explanation for say, gravity. Yes, we can measure it with precision, but what the heck is it?”
This says it all about your knowledge of physics. Gravity is explained by Einstein’s theory of General Relativity which was formulated exactly a century ago. Gravitational waves were detected for the first time this year, confirming one of the predictions of Einstein’s expanation.
“And, if you follow physics, you know that the more physicists uncover about the universe, the more questions there are; the more the one word mystery is the very best us humans can do.” Physicists are humans, too. Evidently they are a lot better informed than humans who throw up their hands in amazement at things they can’t comprehend and cry ‘mystery!’ Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that these people chooise to display their ignorance in public.
JJ Flowers, I responded to what you had previously written, after reading it carefully.
I agree with the first part of your statement: “You are right. I do not understand very much of physics…”. I disagree with the second part: “, though I keep trying.” The only thing that you are ‘trying’ in your last reply to me is my patience.
You wrote: “Finally, I suggested that there is a problem in our scientific method.” Likewise, I finally suggest that there is a problem in your methods — not the least of which being your chosen method of commenting on the subject “Reiki: neither plausible, nor effective, nor harmless”.
There’s a guy in my work convinced he can project his consciousness anywhere in the universe instantaneously. Not much later in the conversation he said “I’ve always preferred hallucinogens to other drugs”. Cause and effect. Explain to me the mechanism behind reiki in a reproducible format and I’ll gladly listen to you.
That’s not really true. I have heard stories in reiki circles of people using their hands to charge dead batteries or jump start their car.
@sallyhansen
Thanks for passing on stories you have heard. Great evidence!
Wow! Really?
What about raising people from the dead, levitating aircraft to reduce their CO2 emissions, accelerating cars to cruising speed, or using reiki masters instead of cranes on building sites?
Einstein was right; human stupidity is infinite.
Oh that’s just Mercury Retrograde, because the appearance of a planet from our perspective seeming to move away, causes all the problems with things like cars for some reason. Maybe from the flatness of earth?
There are magic devices on sale to improve the performance of cars, such as electrically-powered hydrogen generators which then feed the hydrogen into the air intake of the engine. Also in the 1980’s it was very common to see earthing straps dangling behind vehicles.
Fantastic. I mean the products of critical thinking. Transistors, cameras, automobiles, etc.
The result of all these things? An overburdened planet, resource depletion, habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, aggregation of power, accumulation of wealth, consolidation of governance, commoditization of humans, you folks should be really proud of all this progress; the product of critical thinking.
hiii friend,why are you not accepting in 21st Century it can be transferred from one body to another.
why don’t you shoe us some evidence for your claim?
I have handed out more copies of Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World” than I can count. Does it do any good? Not with the true believers. Sigh.
Ever heard or studied Qantum Physics? It’s understood by those of us who happen to be able to think outside the box.
if I were you, I wouldn’t go there!
This looks like getting really funny. Estella, yes, in fact I have heard of Quantum Physics and took classes at university which covered that topic a bit. The problem you face now is, is Reiki God’s unmeasurable energy or quantum physics which can be measured very well ? However, the answer will not ameliorate your problem, namely that RCTs are capable to measure the effects of *both*.
Estella: I told you not to go there!
@Estella
Please do tell us all about your understanding of ‘Qantum’ Physics and reiki…
Estella,
Have you studied quantum mechanics. [Rhetorical question, hence the lack of an appended question mark not being a grammatical error.]
I echo Professor Ernst’s advice to you: If I were you, I wouldn’t go there!
https://youtu.be/5suc-fz6PUk
People talk about ‘how is energy transferred’ as If without a human built machine to measure it or make money out of it ..it simply doesn’t exist.
How do you know when someone is thinking I’ll thoughts about you when you walk in a room.We are talking in some respects about psychic energy ..energy is relative to thd conductor or conductee and manifests itself in relation to those principles
I could ask you the same question, “how do you know?”, you have no way of knowing. Knowing is different and belief is different. Belief needs no “know”. For e.g. the kid believes that there is a monster under his bed. He does not need to know that there is a monster or not. The question could be “how did that kid get that belief? was it not throw some “know” or knowledge?. Stop here, what is “know”? know is to see, to hear, to taste, to hear, to feel it in the skin. If it is not any of the five than it is not a “know”. Then how did the kid believe? (1) the assumption, (2) illusion. Have you seen any magic trick? if not watch some on Youtube, the Chinese face mask, etc. We have no way of knowing how that trick is done, are you sure a pigeon does not come out of a hat? Lastly whatever you said is just bullshit.
Oooh! Just commented on the relationship of critical thinking to alt med/not on the chiro thread….
It’s amazing how closely similar this Reiki business is to the supernatural Japanese anime series of cartoons and graphic novels, such as Yu Yu Hakusho or Dragonball Z. Those, too, have a lot of “energy” generation and energy throwing and so on. Just like the way Biblical creationists seem to consider the Flintstones to be a documentary, I wonder if these Reiki practitioners and believers think the same of these anime shows?
Reiki becomes highly plausible and effective to the practitioner (via self-delusion and business success). The prospective client may be easily seduced by it especially due to initial positive placebo reaction reinforced by the allure of becoming a ‘healer’. It has a strong element of victim blaming i.e. it plays on nocebo reactions (good for practitioner, harmful to client).
Is it effective? Obviously not. If it was effective it would be medicine rather than a branch of CAM.
Is it harmless? Absolutely not. All practitioners of panacea CAM are indoctrinated to believe that every negative outcome is a positive sign of the healing process. If after months of experimenting on the client the symptoms are still getting worse a practitioner will either covertly dismiss the client or overtly refer them to their GP. Furthermore, Reiki practitioners must (by definition) have very strong spiritual beliefs (they pay directly or indirectly in an attempt to master their spirituality, which is a never-ending process) and must instil as least some of these beliefs into their clients — otherwise they wouldn’t be performing proper Reiki healing.
Reiki is one of many branches of CAM that claims to be a panacea, however, what makes it unusual (therefore of possible interest to discuss) is its business model.
It has a three-tired hierarchy of degrees: First, Second, and Master/Teacher. The client can be ‘cured’ of their ailment(s) just as effectively by a Reiki Master as by visiting a homeopath, but one’s local Reiki Master will likely obtain more income than would one’s local homeopath because the former is allowed to coerce the client into additional spending on training courses with the practitioner whereas the latter practitioner is not allowed to do so.
The Reiki healing process encourages the client to learn how to heal themselves, for which one or more training courses is essential. From the client perspective this is very tempting because not only does it offer the client the ability to self-heal, it also offers the client the opportunity to become a healer of others and to make money by so doing. This is an alluring triple reward for the client. (For some clients it’s a quadruple allure due to the self-esteem gained from having their first meaningful framed certificate of achievement/accreditation.)
Reiki, it seems to me, is a lucrative multi-level marketing scheme whereas most other branches of CAM stick to using institutions for practitioner qualification. Vendors of supplements seem to be divided between the two business models. I have obviously avoided naming the many franchise schemes used in other branches of CAM.
Despite having personally witnessed a myriad of different CAM conjuring tricks over the decades I’m still somewhat fascinated by them. They remind me of the Venus flytrap: this type of predator doesn’t need to get smarter, it relies on the abundance of prey that makes no effort to outwit its predator.
Attempting dialogue with Venus flytraps in order to elicit evidence for efficacy in curing the diseases of flies is as pointless as attempting dialogue with CAM practitioners to elicit evidence for efficacy in curing the diseases of humans (and other animals). Venus flytraps and CAM practitioners already have enough food on their tables to survive therefore they don’t need to provide further evidence for their efficacy.
The CAM definition of efficacy is exactly the same as ours: the ability to produce a desired or intended result.
Our stumbling block is that we expect their desired or intended result to be the same as ours. We cannot overcome this block until we realize, accept, and learn to work with these totally different paradigms.
If critical thinking skills had been incorporated into the national curriculum, as had been agreed over a decade ago by many world leaders, quackery would be heading towards extinction rather than expanding.
The JREF has demonstrated that quackery can be a very useful teaching aid to developing critical thinking skills. Perhaps this is the best method to combat what has become “The CAM disease, which is in desperate need of a cure.”
Dear Mr. Edzard
I have a question.
There was a scientific experiment that it generated data, ending that there were improvements in several well-being situations with significant percentages.
Then I read his comment saying that researching causes a mistaken impression of the people about Reiki. Only that.
I didn’t read any objection really plausible and effective exposing mistakes in the method of research nor that the data were badly collected.
With the title of PhD, you well know that cannot simply write “I didn’t like” on the results, you need to convince us that the research was badly done in technical terms and it didn’t prove anything.
Thanks.
@Peter
The thing is, the study wasn’t placebo-controlled. If you got a random guy (not a Reiki user) off the street and asked him to pretend to be a Reiki practitioner, the patients would still report improvement. Without placebo controls, the study is irrelevant because because *anything* (even sugar pills) can make people feel better.The question is not whether Reiki can help people, but whether it can help people more than placebo (i.e. sham Reiki.)
Recently the Confederation of Healing Organisations has funded research by University of Northampton Professors Chris Roe and Elizabeth Roxburgh which has shown that distant healing actually does WORK http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/4671/ The researchers have also shown that such effects are also useful in a mental health setting and recommend psychologists and psychotherapists be trained and supervised in this http://www.bial.com/imagem/Bolsa8210_07022013.pdf
the research you cite does not show that these treatments work.
The study cited (Roe, Sonnex & Roxburgh: 2012) is quite clear in its statement that such healing processes DO WORK. After a thorough review of all the evidence the authors conclude that:
“Findings with the non-whole human database suggest that subjects in the active condition were observed to have a significant improvement in wellbeing relative to control subjects under circumstances that do not seem to be susceptible to placebo and expectancy effects. Findings with the whole human database gave a smaller mean effect size but this was still significant”
Roe, C. A., Sonnex, C. and Roxburgh, E. C. (2012) Two meta-analyses of distant healing studies. Parapsychological Association 55th Annual Convention, Durham, North Carolina, 09-12 August 2012. Durham, North Carolina, USA: Parapsychological Association.
http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/4671/
I do not dispute what you are saying about one single study. however, if you take ALL the available evidence into account, you arrive at a different conclusion. cherry-picking your data is misleading.
Findings “suggest” that subjects were “observed” to have “significant” improvement in “wellbeing” …under circumstances that do not “seem” to be “susceptible”…
That does not sound like a very certain conclusion or even a scientific one to me. If it were certain then it would read more like;
Results showed that subjects demonstrated a statistically significant improvement on ? measurements when the placebo effect was eliminated…
Proof is a definite thing. Not vaguely suggestive of a possibility. Otherwise its only an opinion.
What I saw here is just false. Just because you didn’t get to explain it, it doesn’t mean that is not real. And yes, I value the scientifically method and believe it will get soon to clearly explain the so called esoteric field of energy that is still a transcendental issue. Well, Reiki is real, is physical and spiritual, and works, simple and effective, simple energy flowing. No detailed studies can place the simple fact of experience felt in your own body. And yet, everyone is free to have an opinion, even empty opinions. Don’t get me wrong, I am not offending you. But you are telling lies here.
Peace
@Gonçalo
Try reading Pete 628 ‘s comment a bit further up. He explains very clearly how and why and what you are experiencing
The esoteric field of transcendental energy may well be real to you, but only as an idea in your own head.
The liars in this game are the ones who take money from people promising to cure an ailment with something that only exists in their own head.
Complementary Therapies do not claim to cure an illness, rather support a person and make them feel better able to cope with it. However if Reiki is all in the head like you say, I am grateful to have it and a wonderful gift to receive. Have you heard the saying ‘you could cut the atmosphere with a knife’ when First walk into a room, you cannot see the tension you just sense that it is there.
Alison Cockerill said:
That’s a rather sweeping statement and, other than being pedantic that it’s the practitioners of ‘complementary’ therapies who make the claims, it is trivially refuted.
There may well be some therapies that make someone feel a bit better, but that’s not all they claim to do, is it?
Perhaps you could provide some good evidence that reiki does, indeed, work?
Yes, but what do you believe that has got to do with the evidence for reiki?
Thank you for this post. After years of practicing and teaching energy work, I had an epiphany about 5-6 years ago brought on by my conversations with some of the EBP folks I met on the Internet. People don’t like to give up their BS (believe systems or bullshit, your call!), and my speaking out about it has cost me some supporters. After I shared the Rosa study the other day on my FB page, someone immediately said “I hate to see someone I used to admire slamming alternative therapies that they do not understand.”
I’m not a scientist by anyone’s stretch of the imagination but I do have the ability, when it hits me over the head, to see how something cannot work in the way it’s claimed. I wish I had the ability to impart that to others. I realize people have good intentions, and all the years I was practicing it, I had good intentions, too. Reiki and other forms of energy work were required at the massage school I attended. No one wants to believe they’re spending time and money to learn things that are false.
I feel like I’m fighting a losing battle because as mentioned above, it’s infiltrated the military, and the last time I counted it there are about 800 hospitals in the US offering Reiki to patients, including some of the most respected teaching hospitals. I don’t think there’s any hope of getting rid of it. It’s growing like a fungus.
thank you; it is up to us to promote rational thought and disclose irrationality for what it is. I invite you to submit a blog post as a guest to this blog.
Well said Laura and I think very honest of you. I work in Palliative Care and REiki and Energy Healing is offered more and more for our patients and their relatives. Training sessions are also taught at my Hospice. Yet we purport, as an organisation, to use evidence based practice! It is a great concern to me and I am stone walled when I question this.
Sue, Laura
There is obviously a place for some massage in hospices and in hospitals used as a means of relaxation and even just ‘pampering’ and I agree entirely with you that nonsense such as reiki should have no place. I know some organisations provide a very light touch massage: it’s barely even massage – more just a stroking covering arms and shoulders – but clients feel a benefit from that. But these tend to be vulnerable and possibly lonely people for whom this person-to-person contact may be the only contact they have with others and is also a way of giving them an opportunity to talk to someone who is trained to listen. I’m sure something like that – which makes no therapeutic claims other than being relaxing and increasing ‘well-being’ – would be far preferable to the mumbo-jumbo of reiki in hospices and hospitals.
Touch and warmth (both physical and mental) are well known essentials for humans and other warm blooded animals (at least?).
As Alan says, this is what many people are sorely lacking.
Someone called this deficiency “skin hunger”.
As a physician (surgeon) I learned long ago that when visiting a patient at the bed, even if in a hurry, I examine the patient if needed and then try to sit down, however briefly, take the pulse at the wrist (always informative). Then I continue to hold on to the hand while discussing matters at hand. One senses right away if the patient is uncomfortable with this, which is almost never. This touch, closeness warmth and relaxation, however brief and casual, is part of the real art of using placebo to aid real medicine. I could of course pretend to feel the “heat” or “energy” or whatever they call it, those who bought themselves imaginary magical reiki-powers. But I do not need to call it magic. It is real, non-mystical human interaction that the worried-well generation has forgotten how to practice for themselves and are instead buying with varying amounts of deception from well-meaning craniosacral therapists, reiki-masters and other brands of touch-quacks, who have been led to believe it is an alternative form of science.
Touch and warmth (both physical and mental) are well known essentials for humans and other warm blooded animals (at least?).
Do you have proves of that?
who have been led to believe it is an alternative form of science.
Who is claiming this?
I agree there is definitely a place for `touch’ in palliative care. Some Complementary therapies certainly help patients and carers to achieve relaxation and they report improved emotional `well being’ after wards. But sometimes, and for many different reasons a person may not be able to receive `physical touch’ treatments. In these instances there may be a place for the hands- off `relaxation’, which `REIKI’ seems to afford recipients. After all most of us WOULD feel relaxed during and after spending 30minutes on a comfy couch, in a warm cocoon like room, with tranquil music in the background. So why not call it that and make no other claims. Would it be less beneficial simply because we are being honest?
If we continue to accept the psuedo science of Reiki, and , by using it so unquestioningly within a medical model of care, we are giving credence to it. The message we are giving is that it IS safe, appropriate and therapeutic and ethical and all on the back of the idea that ` well it can’t really cause any harm can it?’ How do I tackle this? Advice appreciated.
it is NOT safe to make people believe in mystical nonsense! it undermines rationality in out society which can have disastrous effects
Belief in mystical nonsense can lead to disastrous effects like the Crusades, for instance.
Is there really any kind of evidence that folks are forgoing other treatments in favor of Reiki for serious conditions? Seriously?
jm said:
Such as homeopathy or the vertebral subluxatiion complex?
I doubt reiki practitioners record that detail, but you’re missing the point.
I don’t think I’m missing the point at all, Alan. I’ve know several christians who, as part of their faith, refuse any and all medical care. I also know quite a few folks who have received reiki trreatments – after receiving chemo, muscle reattachments, various other medical treatments.
I don’t know of a single person who opted for reiki as sole treatment for a serious condition. I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who did that. I’m sure they’re out there somewhere, but they are outliers who would refuse western med treatment anyway.
The reiki folks believe they are using electromagnetic potential inherent in uncoccupied space to facilitate healing after a medical intervention. The christians are relying on the hand of an unseen deity at the exclusion of all other treatment.
So which mystical nonsense do you think is more dangerous? Oh dear…
@jm
Yes, there are all sorts of similarities between belief in magic medicine and belief in a god, etc: all are lacking in any good evidence.
But I think this is a good example of the problem of believing in nonsense – it engenders highly dangerous attitudes and actions that can kill: Natural Treatments for AIDS / HIV:
Again, it’s most likely that anyone following the Beck protocol would be avoiding western med anyway (for whatever reason). Or finance reasons. Many can’t afford western med, and for every person charging for reiki there are many more who don’t charge (most reiki practitioners hold to the belief that charging money for healing is unethical – but you rarely hear about them for obvious reasons).
Putting reiki in the “dangerous” category is quite bizarre. Worrying about ‘endorsement’ of psuedo science is also a bit odd…considering that many hospitals house chapels.
Then again, if that’s our biggest problem – woohoo!
one can never justify one nonsense with another!
jm said:
Your logical fallacy is Appeal to personal incredulity. I refer you to the words I quoted.
As has already been pointed out, the danger isn’t always the specific effects of a treatment, but the problems that the non-specific effects create, including engendering a mistrust – or even hatred and contempt – for conventional treatments and medical professionals.
Not trying to justify anything – just saying that on the scale of “dangerous”…reiki doesn’t even make the list. Or if it’s on a list of dangers, is just below bunnies and kittens. People should be more worried about ibuprophen.
Alan – “…engendering a mistrust – or even hatred and contempt – for conventional treatments and medical professionals.”
What does that have to do with reiki? Or religious beliefs, for that matter? You seem to have pulled that out of left field…???
jm said:
Please try to keep up. The link to that exaltation to forgo conventional medical treatment for AIDS was on the website of a reiki practitioner.
“Please try to keep up. The link to that exaltation to forgo conventional medical treatment for AIDS was on the website of a reiki practitioner.”
Oh dear… Next you’ll tell me that all western allopaths are quacks, because someone’s touting a “magic green pill” – and it’s on the website of an MD! As you say, “please try to keep up”. (That was so cute, by the way.)
If you’re doing a google search for reiki, you have to dig pretty deep to find the site you’re referencing. The top hit for me was reiki.org. Specifically, this page: http://www.reiki.org/faq/whatisreiki.html. And you could have pulled this quote from it:
“It (reiki) also works in conjunction with all other medical or therapeutic techniques to relieve side effects and promote recovery.”
Good grief.
sorry, you are wrong: reiki does NOT work, at least not beyond placebo.
jm said:
What on earth are you on about?
No, I found it very easily. But of course, where it is ranked by Google has no bearing on the veracity of what it says. And you have no idea what terms I searched for, so why assume what I found would be the same as what you found?
So what? ‘Research’ is frequently more than hitting ‘I’m Feeling Lucky’.
Good grief. So I could. I could have quoted any other words from that site. However, it seems that not all reiki practitioners follow the gospel of reiki.org, so my quote taken from a reiki practitioner’s website still stands.
BTW, I don’t suppose reiki.org provided any good evidence for their claims?
Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand rather than how Google searches work, you said:
So I searched for reiki and AIDS and, lo and behold, the seventh result here was the one I quoted where a reiki practitioner seemed to be advocating the abandonment of conventional treatments for this ‘Bob Beck Protocol’. Now that ‘treatment’ may well not be reiki, but I was using it as an illustration of how – as you put it – ‘Belief in mystical nonsense can lead to disastrous effects’. A point well made by that quote.
“sorry, you are wrong: reiki does NOT work, at least not beyond placebo.”
hmmm…I missed the part where I said it worked….where was that again?
jm
Well, you repeated the quote from reiki.org saying that reiki worked. Are they wrong?
Alan – “Well, you repeated the quote from reiki.org saying that reiki worked. Are they wrong?”
Yeah, I quoted from reiki.org, because that’s what comes up first if someone googled “reiki”. If someone was unfamiliar with reiki, they would probably search the term “reiki”. Are they wrong? I have no idea, but from what Sue was saying the “promote recovery” aspects seems pretty accurrate. Or am I missing the something about the dangers of relaxing?
In contrast, you cherry picked some whack job that someone would have to do a relatively deep search to find. And then say “Now that ‘treatment’ may well not be reiki”. I’m sure there’s someone somewhere cherry picking whack job Dr Oz as ‘proof’ that western med is dangerous. (That’s what I was ‘going on’ about, by the way. I didn’t think that would be too hard to follow, but here we are.)
“But of course, where it is ranked by Google has no bearing on the veracity of what it says.”
No kidding. Again, that’s what the unfamiliar will find doing a search for “reiki”. Odds are, that would be the search. Or they would check Wikipedia, and find that reiki is considered a spiritual practice with no evidence of treatment success.
“Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand rather than how Google searches work…”
Yeah, the topic at hand was the dangers of people believing that reiki works. The therapy isn’t dangerous, belief in the proposed mechanism isn’t dangerous, more often than not it’s free, and there are zero side effects. I think you should google the word “dangerous”.
If safety in relation to mystical nonsense is really an issue, it would make more sense to replace hospital and palliative facility chapels with reiki practitioners. Or better yet, a good cafe.
jm said:
As I said, I did not search for reiki on its own because we were supposed to be discussing reiki and serious medical conditions. But you don’t seem to be able to get past the idea that the first result in Google does not mean it is correct or the most authoritative. It is just a search result.
Please don’t confuse specific with non-specific effects. Sue was quite clear she was referring to the non-specific effects and that there were no specific effects of reiki.
At least we can agree about Oz. However, getting back to what we started discussing – the use of reiki and serious medical conditions – are you suggesting that, to find out what reiki practitioners think about treating serious medical conditions, I simply search for reiki and if I find nothing in the first hit, I should conclude that everything is all hunky-dory in reiki land? Maybe that reiki practitioner is a one-off, but I doubt it – how about you?
I’m glad that Wikipedia is accurate on that, but yet again, you’ve missed the point.
I have already given you an good example of a reiki practitioner appearing to endorse a highly dangerous practice. If you want to ignore that, then so be it.
LOL!
Alan –
“As I said, I did not search for reiki on its own because we were supposed to be discussing reiki and serious medical conditions. But you don’t seem to be able to get past the idea that the first result in Google does not mean it is correct or the most authoritative. It is just a search result.”
You need to reread what I wrote.
“Please don’t confuse specific with non-specific effects. Sue was quite clear she was referring to the non-specific effects and that there were no specific effects of reiki.”
Yup. According to research, specific results of reiki is: nothing. Non-specific effects: relaxation.
“At least we can agree about Oz. However, getting back to what we started discussing – the use of reiki and serious medical conditions – are you suggesting that, to find out what reiki practitioners think about treating serious medical conditions, I simply search for reiki and if I find nothing in the first hit, I should conclude that everything is all hunky-dory in reiki land? Maybe that reiki practitioner is a one-off, but I doubt it – how about you?”
Nope. Again, re-read what I wrote. Read all the words, not assuming that I am in any way supporting reiki. Assume that I am commenting on considering reiki dangerous. Also assume that it’s the rare individual (regardless of one off website nutjobs) that will treat a serious med condition solely with reiki.
“I’m glad that Wikipedia is accurate on that, but yet again, you’ve missed the point.”
The point is that folks curious about reiki will be informed that it’s not primary treatment for serious med conditions.
“I have already given you an good example of a reiki practitioner appearing to endorse a highly dangerous practice. If you want to ignore that, then so be it.”
I’ve given you a good example of the dangers of western med. Ignore it if you want. Actually, Oz is more dangerous than the site you found. He reaches more people. The difference here is that I don’t think Oz is representative of western med – you seem to think that obscure nutburger is representative of reiki. Not sure why you think that.
“LOL”
Chapels in hospitals make me LOL, too!
*sigh*
Thanks for your opinion.
I can only assume that those who have posted above about the ‘sham of Reiki’ have never actually bothered to go and experience a treatment themselves. Because if you had, you would know that it works. You do not need to have a scientific study explain why a massage is beneficial and you don’t for Reiki. I have been a complimentary therapist for 12 years and a Reiki practitioner for 3 years and I have been amazed at the results I get when using Reiki on my clients. Even the most sceptical – I am part of the Google massage team so you can imagine how many engineers like to dismiss it initially, but yet are completely amazed and converted! I use it to help release knots in a tenth of the time and with half of the pain and can literally switch off pain in some cases – for example putting one hand on the belly and asking Reiki to take the pain away whilst pressing on the IT Band as hard as I can. Instantly switches of the pain. Also, the amount of heat that is generated from my hands when the Reiki is flowing is incredible and yet my hands themselves are usually quite cold. People – including myself are always amazed! I was always a bit sceptical myself, being a hands on body worker, but seriously, Reiki is amazing and it does work and is an incredible support for me in my job – on some days I massage up to 7 hours – before I could give Reiki I would be completely wiped out.
I watched my mum’s leg (post hip op) that was really swollen literally go back to almost it’s normal size in front of our very eyes after I administered ten minutes of Reiki. My mum was previously a sceptic! It continues to amaze me and sometimes freak me out to be honest how effective it is. It’s only a shame that people like to dismiss things they have never experienced – how do you even know if it doesn’t work if you haven’t even tried it. Honestly, we are not saying Reiki is the cure for all disease, but it does make life better and people feel better, and that can only be a good thing. Reiki is for the highest good of all. It’s a practical application of energy for the benefit of all. Try it, then comment. it’s a bit like reviewing a restaurant that you haven’t eaten in. Until then, your comments have no value.
are the effects so miraculous that they disappear in controlled clinical trials?
Jo Giles said:
Oh? Why’s that?
By the same reason you don’t need a scientific study to explain when you are thirsty you should drink water.
@ Jo Giles
Lets keep going with the restaurant metaphor. You got to a restaurant and really enjoy your meal, 10 other people find out they have food poisoning due to the poor standards of hygiene. Even though your experience was good do we ignore the other evidence? Would you go back there if the conditions remain the same?
…or if independent health inspectors condemn it for being unhygienic, would you go back because the meal you experienced yourself didn’t harm you?
Jo, I have received REIKI. I have also worked in a comp Therapy centre charging for Reiki as well as in other situations where Reiki was/is offered by, I’m certain, well meaning, well intentioned volunteer Reiki therapists. But no matter how well intentioned that doesn’t make the therapy effective, safe or ethical.
When I had my REIKI treatment I felt very relaxed during and after…. BUT… I was in a quiet, warm, therapy room with candles, floaty music, , the ideal scenario for me to `shut out’ my day to day worries. PLus, my therapist made me `feel safe’, she inferred on me an air of calm, of trust and her belief that this treatment would help. As a rational person I knew that my `feel good feelings’ during and after, were simply because of the environment , nothing else. If I was `suggestable’ I would probably attribute it to the Reiki ESPECIALLY so when the therapist `identifies’ areas of `blocked energy.
I have sampled many different alternative therapies and guess what?….. they all suggest the same areas of `blockage’. I can predict the areas which will be identified: my liver, my spleen, my pelvic area (usually gynae ), my bowels and always my lymph system! But this is simply guess work and should not be made out to be anything else.
well my brother is a reiki master and he did reiki on me and i can say that it might work in a placebo way BUT it certainly did nothing for me and for what i got out of it ( which was nothing ) i certainly would not part with any money for it, i can tell you its a sham.
hi jo, my brother is a “reiki master”he tried his “craft”on me, needless to say it did NOTHING for me, its a scam, i said it to my brother and as a result he does not talk to me, i dont particularly care except i dont think its nice to take money from people in return for something that is proven to be of little use.
hi everybody,my estranged brother is a “reiki master” somewhere in this forum it was mentioned lack of education,concerning my brother this is true, his education levels are low, his mind is closed to the point where he would not consider for a moment that reiki is a load of rubbish, you could place in front of him all the evidence in the world that reiki is rubbish and he would not believe it, but the thing is my estranged brother has nothing else in life, so to lose his title as “reiki master”would mean that he would have to accept the fact that in reality he has nothing and for him and others like him means that they have to cling to their titles for dear life.yes i truly believe lack of good education contributes to the problems we are facing regarding things like reiki.
hiii.pl read yr own para
Since the publication of our article, a number of new investigations have become available. In a brand-new study, for instance, the researchers wanted to explore a Reiki therapy-training program for the care-givers of paediatric patients. A series of Reiki training classes were offered by a Reiki-master. At the completion of the program, interviews were conducted to elicit participant’s feedback regarding its effectiveness.
Seventeen families agreed to participate and 65% of them attended three Reiki training sessions. They reported that Reiki had benefited their child by improving their comfort (76%), providing relaxation (88%) and pain relief (41%). All caregivers thought that becoming an active participant in their child’s care was a major gain. The authors of this investigation conclude that “a hospital-based Reiki training program for caregivers of hospitalized pediatric patients is feasible and can positively impact patients and their families. More rigorous research regarding the benefits of Reiki in the pediatric population is needed.”
if 88% gets relaxation than it proves reiki exists.Research needed for12% why they are not feeling relaxation . A good reiki master can ans this.
people can relax regardless of what you call ‘energy’
hi sanjay, i can relax on my sofa without reiki
If people does not need energy in your opinion then you are really………….
sanjay
You are making no sense. However, it would be good if you could answer the question I asked you:
@Alan – The first part of your question is pretty straightforward. As I think I said before, reiki roughly translates to: electromagnetic potential inherent in unoccupied space.
Rei is basically the electromagnetic potential of free space.
Ki is electromagnetism.
Modern science has been measuring rei for quite some time. Still haven’t proven electromagnetism yet, though. But the effects of electromagnetism are measurable. So when you say “what you believe this reiki ‘energy’ is…” – it’s not a belief system. It’s just physics.
For the second part of your question…can’t help you there.
jm
What value is measured when reiki energy is measured?
Depends. But I think it’s usually pascal units, if memory serves.
jm said:
No. The Pascal is an SI derived unit for pressure, not energy.
But what do you mean by ‘depends’ and ‘usually’?
Alan: “No. The Pascal is an SI derived unit for pressure, not energy.”
Yes, and I was assuming that measuring pressure is probably the most common measurement of empty space (hence the ‘usually pascal units’, since you asked). Another would be vacuum energy, which I believe is measured in joules. Depends on what you’re looking at in empty space. (that’s what I mean by ‘depends’).
So maybe joules is more common than pascal units. I have no idea. I suppose PSI is even more common than either of the other two.
Rei doesn’t mean energy. It’s referring to empty or free space.
@jm
I’m not asking about pressure, empty space or vacuums or which SI unit is the more common.
What value is measured when reiki energy is measured?
@Alan – You certainly were asking about empty space. Rei → empty space. Ki → electromagnetism.
Then you ask about how it can be transferred and what the procedure is. That I don’t know.
(Now is the time for you to reply with “sigh”, and I resign myself to the fact that you can’t understand that different languages have words different from ours for physical phenomena. As we’ve discussed before, different cultures have different words for things like ‘weather’ and ‘gravity’ as well as empty space. Go figure.)
@jm
No. However, it seems that you don’t know what ‘reiki energy’ is, how it might be measured, what would be used to measure it nor even if it exists. Would that be a fair summary?
That’s very Monty Python of you. Bravo!
hi jim, sorry to butt in but there is NO evidence of the so called life energy used in reiki actually exists and as this energy does not exist it therefore cannot be measured, there have been controlled scientific tests to prove that reiki at best can only offer a placebo effect, in other words it really does nothing for you, as i have stated elswhere, my brother is a “reiki master” and he tried on me and to his dismay it did nothing for me, but that does not stop him from taking money from gullible people for his “treatment” if the people are silly enough to pay him, good luck to him.
Hi Joe, I’m assuming you mean that the controlled tests → placebo you’re talking about are referring to the therapy Reiki. Alan was asking “perhaps you could explain – in scientific terms – what you believe this reiki ‘energy’ is”.
I was talking about “this reiki energy”, not the therapy…since that’s what he asked about. I think we can all agree that the inherent qualities of empty space are actually quite useful, and far from placebo.
@jm
What ‘inherent qualities of empty space [that] are actually quite useful’?
Now you’re just being silly, Alan.
hi jim, a proven and controlled test conducted some time ago involving a test subject named emily rosa, came to the conclusion that “reiki energy”does NOT exist, in contrast there is NO proven evidence that “reiki energy or life force” exists. so the only conclusion that a rational person can make is that “reiki” actually has no effect except as a placebo, which really means its a fake.and quite frankly there is really no point in discussing this further because people with high intellect and very high education have proven that “reiki” is actually fake, of course you have the right to believe what you like.
Again, you are talking about the therapy. I’m not. If you can’t understand that, then you’re right – there really is no point in discussing this futher.
@jm
joe began his comment by talking about the energy, not the therapy. You’re reading selectively again. He wrote about the Emily Rosa experiment, in which a young lady set up a scientifically impeccable test for “human energy fields”. It was done in the context of therapeutic touch, which of course cannot possibly be the same thing as reiki, even though both depend on mysterious “energy” given out by the body. However, if you want to tell us that reiki energy is different from the energy used by therapeutic touchers then we have two new branches of physics, each measuring undetectable energies given out by different types of believers.
Your flim-flam below about pascals, joules, vacuums and other purported measurables confirms you haven’t even the vaguest idea what you are talking about. You should join forces with the amazing Jane Summers. Between you you could produce a whole new textbook on energy fields and how they work.
Or perhaps not: it’s already a busy field for aura believers and crystal healers, to judge from this amazon page: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=energy+fields. Perhaps reiki energy should be measured in Newton Metres, to confirm you don’t know what you’re torquing about. Sorry 🙂
1. Johnny’s bat shit crazy, and thinks the sky is a vacuum. I doubt he thinks that.
Oh, I’m batshit crazy alright. I should be in bed with my wife instead of typing things to random strangers on the internet – but you are correct, I don’t think the sky is a vacuum. A swiffer perhaps, but not a vacuum.
2. Johnny thinks that Reiki practitioners invented their own special energy that they are using. That’s also pretty crazy. Reiki doesn’t claim that – they claim to use what inherently exists.
No, I get that they think they are “harnessing” something — but I also don’t see any scientific proof of said ability.
3. Johnny was making a really clever joke about rei and the poetically described effects that atmospheric conditions have on our being. With a hint of Joseph Beuys.
Sadly, I’m not that clever. But I do feel like maybe I should go put some honey on my head.
“No, I get that they think they are “harnessing” something — but I also don’t see any scientific proof of said ability.”
Me neither. Sorry to drag you out of bed.
Let’s leave it on the “honey” note, and speak of this no more. I’d rather it stay a mystery as to whether you intentionally chose honey, or just because it was the first in Wikipedia.
Has anyone on this thread really thought through what SHOULD be measured in reiki research? It’s not energy. It’s vibrational frequency. And I am waiting for the scientist who will finally understand this, and perform a controlled study of the vibrational frequency of the body as a whole, before, during, and after a reiki session. It’s like skipping a stair on a staircase. Don’t worry about what the mysterious “energy” is, just measure the effect in hertz. After all, the world was a round planet well before it was scientifically proven. Nobody was trying to understand the planet’s core until after they realized it wasn’t flat.
I get the impression you don’t understand what clinical trials test: they test hypotheses related to clinical outcome. so it the claim is that Reiki alleviates pain, or improves quality of like, these would be what needs to be measured.
you say it’s a vibrational frequency. without any evidence, this statement is totally bonkers!
Well, we can measure vibrational frequency of a molecule using infrared spectroscopy, so are you saying we could measure reiki by having a reiki practitioner focus their whatsis on the molecule and see if they have any effect?
Trish DeFeo said:
What does that mean?
I’m sorry, I had to look for this, the confirmation link you sent me was expired. It’s not bonkers hahaha, the claims I have read in these comments are that reiki does not exist. So I am telling you that most reiki practitioners don’t understand what’s even going on, so they usually miss the fact that it’s just a vibration. No scientists have ever even looked at measuring changes in vibration because they are assuming they are trying to prove nonsense, and it shows in the research. Bodies emit a vibrational frequency, and reiki should be, at its essence, a higher vibrational frequency. So that is the trial. Measure before, during, and after. Measure the frequency. After the measurements are taken, you can try to figure out what effect the higher frequency has on the body, if at all. It’s not hocus pocus. It just hasn’t been looked at correctly. Don’t worry about where it comes from just yet. One step at a time.
“Bodies emit a vibrational frequency, and reiki should be, at its essence, a higher vibrational frequency.”
S’true. Just reading this scientific description of how reiki works makes my diaphragm and ribcage vibrate so violently I fear my sides shall split asunder.
@Trish DeFeo
You said
I assure you what you are talking about is pure hocus pocus.
Only in the wacky world of New Age spirituality do human bodies behave in the way quantum physics accounts for the behaviour of single molecules. People with no comprehension of science imagine things that happen at the quantum level can simply be scaled up beyond the molecular level.
You may get success measuring the vibrational frquency of people with the shakes, but otherwise… Please do tell us what device, in the depths of your vivid imagination, can measure the ‘vibrational frequency’ of the body.
@Trish DeFeo
You keep talking about these ‘vibrational frequencies’, but can you please explain what it it that’s vibrating and how, exactly, scientists would measure it in this test (not trial) of yours?
Before anyone tries to reason with Trish Defeo, I think they should read this to see how far removed from reality she is;
http://www.theregularwoman.com/?p=141,
You will then see there is no point.
You’re right, there’s no point trying to reason with her. She doesn’t respond to rational questions. But thanks for the link. From that website: “All energy is concentrated vibration.” This raises the interesting concept of diluted vibration. Homeopathists might care to pick up on that one.
Oh brother, you boys are rough, I haven’t been back here and I am not getting notifications, just know that I may or may not be back here to respond. I can only tell you this, because it is obvious that I am not a scientist. There is an amplification of heat that comes off of my hands. My suggestion to test IF something is happening BEFORE trying to figure out WHAT is valid, even if your pomposity does not allow you to admit it. But how to detect seems to always have been skipped over in the effort to decide if there is any effect at all. Pay attention, because I can see how much you love reiki…How do you measure heat? Infrared scope? Thermograph? I am pretty sure heat can be measured. So yes, measure the reiki “whatsis” by testing the changes before during and after. If you can see a change in temperature then, at the very least, reiki would help with relaxation, just like sitting in the sun on a beach.
Trish DeFeo,
Please read my comment:
http://edzardernst.com/2015/02/reiki-nonsense-on-stilts/#comment-64549
Hi Pete,
In reference to your post on the other thread, it should be pretty easy for you to determine if a reiki practitioner is putting out more heat when practicing reiki. There doesn’t need to be a “patient” involved – and the hand rubbing “trick” could easily be eliminated.
There’s a procedure/protocol/not-sure-what-it’s-called when performing reiki. It doesn’t involve rubbing the hands, or any movement whatsoever. Just cue the practitioner when to start/stop/start/stop the procedure without changing anything else. Measure the heat output. The only “patient” involved would be whatever device you want to measure with.
It’s quite interesting.
You don’t need another body to interfere with the temperature. I can sit here and make my palms sweat all by themselves. I know that there is a change, no one knows what it is, but the point of the matter is that there is something, failure to prove is not a testament to the fact that there is nothing, but a testament to the failure of the test. There has to be a way to detect a change, and identify what is happening. I have no designs on reiki being a consistently reliable cure for anything, but it should be recognized for existing. It doesn’t have to be a spacey god thing, it just has to be measured correctly.
Jm, It was so interesting to nine-year-old Emily Rosa that she managed to scientifically debunk it — as has been pointed out to you and other readers many times on Prof. Ernst’s website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa
http://skepdic.com/essays/energyhealing.htm
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch
It doesn’t cure any known illness. The money spent on Reiki is money that could be spent on having a relaxing holiday.
Trish DeFeo said:
No, thorough, when debunking nonsense.
That’s OK. There’s no compunction to. Your comments will stay here for all to see.
Yes it is, but you don’t need to be a scientist to think critically.
No, no there isn’t. Just think about what you are saying: assuming you accept that your core temperature is around 37C, then if your surrounding environment is less than that (if it’s not, you will not survive long) then your skin temperature will be lower. This is known and well understood through physics and physiology. There is no ‘amplification’ of heat, whatever that means. You’ve talked about ‘vibrational frequencies’ but do you even know what heat is?
I invite you to look up what Emily Rosa achieved through a scientific experiment when she was nine years old.
@jm
For goodness’ sake!
“Just cue the practitioner when to start/stop/start/stop the procedure without changing anything else.” What procedure? What’s the set-up you’re not going to change? You have to define experimental conditions precisely if you’re going to do science.
“Measure the heat output.” From what to what?
“The only “patient” involved would be whatever device you want to measure with.” You’re going to measure heat output (from an undefined whatever) and you allow any device? Heat-sensitive paper? A ‘thermically reactive psychic? Even a mercury thermometer would seem inadequate in the setting you loosely describe.
You propose such a vaguely defined test then you wonder why you initiate irritated reactions from real scientists. You’re a dilettante in your chosen sphere of interest. Puffed up but seriously deflated on the comprehension front.
Pete,
The Emily Rosa thing was different – she was testing the ability of the practitioners to sense her hands, yes? I’m suggesting you measure what Trish was talking about (“There is an amplification of heat that comes off of my hands.”). Measure the heat coming off of her hands. That’s all.
Keep her in the same position, measure while she’s performing the reiki procedure/whatever the term for it is, and while she’s not. She won’t have to change position. I think Trish is saying that when she’s doing reiki, the heat increases. Should be easy to measure, yes?
I totally agree with you about the vacation part.
No need to get so defensive, Frank. It’s a simple heat test for Pete to do, is all. But to answer your questions:
“What procedure?” Practicing reiki.
“What’s the set-up you’re not going to change?” Practitioner’s body position. Whatever measuring device Pete wants to use. Whatever else Pete needs. Totally up to him, since this would just be for his amusement. Feel free to do your own.
““Measure the heat output.” From what to what?” Coming off of the practitioner’s hands, as Trish suggested. See if the heat is amplified when performing reiki.
“You’re going to measure heat output (from an undefined whatever) and you allow any device?” Not an undefined whatever. Hands. Like Trish was suggesting. Pete can use whatever device he wants. In his comment he links to, he seems to be comfortable he can do that. I believe him. Pete seems like a clever guy.
“You have to define experimental conditions precisely if you’re going to do science.” Again, I’m sure Pete’s got a handle on that. I think you can relax.
“You propose such a vaguely defined test then you wonder why you initiate irritated reactions from real scientists.” Actually, I suggested that Pete measure heat. I’m pretty confident that real scientists won’t be that irritated, since they would have read Trish’s comment “There is an amplification of heat that comes off of my hands.”, and the link Pete posted (to his earlier comment). Trish suggests amplified heat generated from her hands, Pete suggests he can measure heat…seems like a pretty good match.
You do seem to be a bit emotional about this subject, for whatever reason. Relax, Frank – it’s just reiki. It won’t bite you. Although, ““A ‘thermically reactive psychic?” was quite funny.
Jm, I’m glad you agree with the vacation part of my comment — I humbly apologise for forgetting to add “, and/or some bottles of fine whisky.” I think the two of us should perform a long-term experiment that compares the benefits of Reiki to the benefits of whisky while on vacation: I’m sure that we are more than qualified to conduct this important experiment and to publish its sobering findings 🙂
All joking aside, you have made a profound point that I totally failed to spot in Trish’s statement: “There is an amplification of heat that comes off of my hands.” As you know, I detest the use of pedantry for its own sake; and that science wouldn’t be useful unless its terminology was pedantically specific.
“Heat amplification” is very different from “temperature amplification”. Heat amplification is impossible according to not our scientific laws of thermodynamics, but due to an inescapable law of the universe itself: energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form into another form. The term “heat” is all about the forms of thermal energy and the flow of thermal energy. The term “temperature” is a derivative [an inevitable result] of the processes of heat transfer: it is an easily quantifiable and verifiable measure of the current state of a system that is undergoing heat energy transfer.
A glass greenhouse is not a heat amplifier, it is a temperature amplifier. Ditto for the greenhouse effect caused by certain gasses being present in the atmosphere of planets. Likewise, the thermal blankets that are used by the emergency services to protect people from hypothermia are not heat amplifiers, they are temperature amplifiers that work by reducing the net outbound heat flow: the net heat loss from the patient to their cooler surroundings. Our clothes are likewise a temperature amplifier, not a heat amplifier. In fact, clothes are the opposite of a heat amplifier: they are a heat attenuator; a lossy network.
The temperature amplification that often occurs in Reiki [and other forms of therapeutic touch] sessions, in both the practitioner and the patient, can so easily be misinterpreted as being a mutual net gain in thermal energy from a yet-to-be-scientifically-explained mysterious source of universal therapeutic energy. Having personally experienced similar misinterpretations many times, I fully understand why the science that explains the experience is not just counter-intuitive, it is extraordinarily difficult to firstly accept, then to properly comprehend.
Having had a glass greenhouse, I know full well that it provides temperature amplification. However, the relationship between heat energy flow and the temperature of the objects involved is by far the most difficult to properly understand aspect of science that I’ve so far encountered — more difficult than gaining a practical understanding of quantum mechanics! In order to finally understand this subject and its related effects, I spent a few hours each day drawing diagrams and producing spreadsheets to perform the calculations. After many days spent becoming increasingly confused, it was while idly watching the vegetables that were boiling in a pan for my dinner that the penny finally dropped: my Eureka moment of finally understanding the fundamental physics; and the ensuing humiliation that I loudly vocalised as “Doh!”.
Pete,
I’m sure Trish simply means that when performing reiki, her hands get noticeably warmer :). And, I’m betting you could easily measure that. I’d also bet that she’s right. Although in my experience, it’d probably be easier if you used a tai chi, qigong, or yiquan practitioner as your subject.
As far as the vacation/reiki/whisky goes…I think significant amounts of whisky would be in order before the reiki. Reiki annoys me to tears. Although, trading a heat energy flow/temperature of the objects involved tutorial for a traditional element theory explanation would be interesting. And I’d love to hear more about the vegetable satori.
@ jm on Monday 16 May 2016 at 01:15
“I’m sure Trish simply means that when performing reiki, her hands get noticeably warmer :). And, I’m betting you could easily measure that.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, again, but her hands cannot get “warmer”. The human body temperature is regulated and there is no mechanism for any part of the body to be at a different temperature. Nor is there any part of the body that will produce enough heat locally to make any difference. Even if there was (by magic), blood flow would remove it quickly to render it neutral.
There may be increased blood flow to the hands and her hands may feel warmer, but they will be the same as before. Increased blood flow will replace the heat lost through radiation and convection at a faster rate but that is all. Even if her hands are warmer, it still means nothing. if she is embarrassed and her cheeks redden through increased blood flow, is that a form of reiki too?
I’d also bet that she’s right.”
Errr, no, wrong again.
You can keep making up this and more nonsense but there is a more than adequate explanation provided by science. Occam’s Razor takes care of all of the fabricated bits.
Frank,
“Sorry to burst your bubble, again, but her hands cannot get “warmer”.”
“There may be increased blood flow to the hands and her hands may feel warmer, but they will be the same as before.”
You crack me up. Quite possibly, reiki has some weird effect on people named “Frank” that causes an overly emotional response. Maybe a study should be done.
Frank Collins,
Please stick to writing about things that you properly understand and kindly refrain from writing nonsense.
Yes, body core temperature is usually changed very little by small-to-medium-scale external influences due to the extraordinary level of precision of our thermoregulation mechanism.
But, the thermal conductivity of skin is not very good, which is why the surface temperature of our skin is usually a few, or many, degrees Celsius below our core body temperature: when we are resting we have to dissipate to our environment the circa 60 watts of our base metabolic rate. To measure core body temperature we cannot use skin temperature as an indicator. In increasing order of accuracy, the thermometer must be placed: in a closed armpit; under the tongue in a closed mouth; in the rectum; through an incision.
Our thermoregulation mechanism is modulated by the level of various hormones. Hence, when we are embarrassed or excited, our thermoregulation mechanism increases the blood flow to certain areas of our skin. When we are frightened, the distribution of blood flow around our body and our skin is vastly different.
The above is trivial to verify under laboratory-controlled conditions using calibrated thermal imaging cameras.
It seems very clear to me that you either didn’t bother to read, or you didn’t bother to attempt to understand, my fuller explanation, to which I linked in my reply to Trish DeFeo:
http://edzardernst.com/2015/02/reiki-nonsense-on-stilts/#comment-64549
I am not at all amused by your comment on Monday 16 May 2016 at 08:31.
@ Pete Attkins on Monday 16 May 2016 at 22:34
“I am not at all amused by your comment on Monday 16 May 2016 at 08:31.”
Do you think I give a stuff whether you are amused or not? And certainly not when you have a hissy fit.
“It seems very clear to me that you either didn’t bother to read, or you didn’t bother to attempt to understand, my fuller explanation, to which I linked in my reply to Trish DeFeo:
http://edzardernst.com/2015/02/reiki-nonsense-on-stilts/#comment-64549”
I did but there isn’t any contradiction, apart from minor semantics.
As for this;
“Yes, body core temperature is usually changed very little by small-to-medium-scale external influences due to the extraordinary level of precision of our thermoregulation mechanism.
But, the thermal conductivity of skin is not very good, which is why the surface temperature of our skin is usually a few, or many, degrees Celsius below our core body temperature: when we are resting we have to dissipate to our environment the circa 60 watts of our base metabolic rate. To measure core body temperature we cannot use skin temperature as an indicator. In increasing order of accuracy, the thermometer must be placed: in a closed armpit; under the tongue in a closed mouth; in the rectum; through an incision.
Our thermoregulation mechanism is modulated by the level of various hormones. Hence, when we are embarrassed or excited, our thermoregulation mechanism increases the blood flow to certain areas of our skin. When we are frightened, the distribution of blood flow around our body and our skin is vastly different.”
The point I was trying to make was that her hands would not be any warmer than body temperature, so even though they would feel warm, they were no hotter than her body or the “recipient” of the reiki scam. Therefore, there would not be a substantial temperature differential and even if there was a local heat source to warm her hands, it proves nothing anyway.
Frank Collins,
The point that you were trying to make, and still are trying to make, is just a demonstration of your failure to understand the science.
Your “hissy fit” reply to jm is what prompted me to highlight your frequent deployment of “hissy fit” comments directed towards those with whom you disagree. Although you sometimes [haphazardly] manage to write pertinent comments, you seem to have a strong preference for writing impertinent replies.
I’m fully aware that you do not “give a stuff” about what anyone other than yourself thinks — you have made this more than abundantly clear via your voluminous output of condescending comments posted on this website.
In case the above is difficult for you to understand, I shall summarize it for you thusly: You appear to be the very antithesis of scientific scepticism; and the antithesis of a person whom has genuine compassion and empathy. But, you are, perhaps, a good teacher: you have taught me to not “give a stuff” about what you think of me personally and to not “give a stuff” about what you think of the scientific content of my comments.
Many thanks for your informative reply.
@ Pete Attkins on Tuesday 17 May 2016 at 20:55
“The point that you were trying to make, and still are trying to make, is just a demonstration of your failure to understand the science.”
Which part/s? Where is my “misunderstanding” with regard to body temperature being of such a difference it have any bearing on providing succour to such claims? I sense your indignation has meant you haven’t processed the text, rather taken an emotional slant on it.
“Your “hissy fit” reply to jm is what prompted me to highlight your frequent deployment of “hissy fit” comments directed towards those with whom you disagree. Although you sometimes [haphazardly] manage to write pertinent comments, you seem to have a strong preference for writing impertinent replies.”
My comment about “hissy fit” was directed to you. How you came to the view it was jm is a mystery.
“I’m fully aware that you do not “give a stuff” about what anyone other than yourself thinks — you have made this more than abundantly clear via your voluminous output of condescending comments posted on this website.”
Contrary to what you may believe, this forum is not about “friendships” or “establishing relationships” with any other protagonist, all that matters is whether something makes sense or not. At the moment, you do not.
“In case the above is difficult for you to understand, I shall summarize it for you thusly: You appear to be the very antithesis of scientific scepticism;”
We disagree.
“and the antithesis of a person whom (sic, a bit too clever by half) has genuine compassion and empathy.”
Is that the point of this forum, notwithstanding your impassioned and pointless plea? If you want “friends”, I suggest you make friendships with real people with whom (that word again) you can have a real friendship?
“But, you are, perhaps, a good teacher: you have taught me to not “give a stuff” about what you think of me personally and to not “give a stuff” about what you think of the scientific content of my comments.”
You are all bound up in “personal” aspects of a forum which is about everything else but personal. The purveyor of witchcraft, jm, is all about personal relationships so he can fleece people with his nonsense magical bruising.
“Many thanks for your informative reply.”
Did you write earlier you had dispensed with your younger religiosity? I have my doubts.
Frank,
You don’t see witches wandering around with neck pain or low back pain, do you? Think about it…
@ jm on Wednesday 18 May 2016 at 07:35
“You don’t see witches wandering around with neck pain or low back pain, do you? Think about it…”
Why? It is just the same inane, nonsensical crap you vomit all the time.
Frank Collins,
Thank you for being such an entertaining clown each time you are challenged.
I always adore your blatant lack of understanding of both the English language and critical thinking skills.
I’m delighted that you disagree with me, because I have absolutely no desire to emulate your behaviour.
@ Pete Attkins on Friday 20 May 2016 at 01:22
“Thank you for being such an entertaining clown each time you are challenged.
I always adore your blatant lack of understanding of both the English language and critical thinking skills.
I’m delighted that you disagree with me, because I have absolutely no desire to emulate your behaviour.”
Thanks Pete, though I thought you might explain what was missing in my understanding, without grandstanding. I suppose I was expecting too much. Has introspection ever been one of your traits?
I wish you and your new, everso good friend, jm, all the best for the future. Peas in a pod?
Frank Collins,
You have a tendency to make claims that are not simply lacking supportive empirical evidence, they contradict the empirical evidence.
Two recent examples of which, are: your mockery of my usage of “whom” instead of “who”; and your mockery of my chosen style of dialogue with my “new, everso good friend, jm”. I shall refrain from providing the empirical evidence because the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claims: you.
I find many of your comments clownish because you have not yet developed the level of introspection required to understand that your frequent attacks on the messenger is not just foolish, it is counterproductive/self-defeating:
“An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about A
Therefore X is false”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
“The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.” — David McRaney
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
Frank, when you are challenged with facts, you either ignore the challenge, or you attack the challenger on a personal level. Presenting you with evidence that contradicts your opinions and beliefs nearly always results in the backfire effect, and very rarely, if ever, results in you admitting that you were wrong, followed by a rational discussion.
Prof Ernst has twice recently requested that commentators on his blog desist from launching (and engaging in) personal attacks.
@ Pete Attkins on Saturday 21 May 2016 at 15:37
Thanks Pete,
I know what an ad hominem is and you aren’t immune from it either. You can stop throwing rocks through your glass walls now. You can also stop acting like some silly old woman at a church fete who spat the dummy because someone didn’t like her scones.
The point I was trying to make, very simplistically for jm, is that the temperature of the hands is not warmer than that of the body. Sure, skin temperature of the hands can be less, depending on the ambient temperature, however, reiki nonsense is not done outside in the cold, and I was framing the point around it being in an environment more conducive to skin being much closer to body temperature.
Here is a graph showing this;
http://www.healthyheating.com/Definitions/facts_about_skin.htm#.V0E_fZF97t4
If, at an ambient temperature of 24 degrees taken as an indoor temperature, the hands are at about 31 degrees, they will not be radiating as much heat that will be felt much close by. Even if the hands were at body temperature, I said it wouldn’t prove anything anyway.
The contention was that her hands got warmer, implying something out of the ordinary. I said, even if her hands felt warm, they could not be any warmer than body temperature , and did not confuse the easily confused by saying it would almost certainly be lower. I also said, that if there was some local heat generation, such as even rubbing the hands together or some mystical source that is implied by reiki, that heat would be lost quickly.
Now get off your high horse before you fall off.
Frank Collins, The hand-rubbing parlour trick is used because it does indeed increase the hand temperature of the practitioner by enough, and for long enough, to be felt by the client.
“My reiki healer vigorously rubbed his hands across his pants before waving them over my wrist. He seems to have produced some heat and some static electricity, which I could feel when he got close to my skin.”
http://www.skepdic.com/reiki.html
Yes, the hands slowly return to their steady state temperature. However, the initial warmth serves to focus the client’s attention on the location of the practitioner’s hands and they won’t notice the gradual drop in temperature (the reduction in infrared power, which I illustrated in my comment on another thread). Placing hands near a person will change the net radiated power from the palms of the practitioner’s hands and the area of the client’s body that the hands are near. This can be felt by both parties, and the effect is much more noticeable if both parties are focussing their attention on it.
The point is that the vast majority of people do not know this aspect of science therefore some people are easy to convince that what they are experiencing is the flow of reiki rather than the flow of infrared radiation. Once the initial seed of reiki has been planted in a persons mind, confirmation bias causes the seed to flourish. Of course, the other factor is that the person believes they have gained ‘special knowledge’ that science denies, and that this ‘special knowledge’ can be used to heal the sick. I fully understand why people want to believe in reiki (and similar mysterious things), and I understand why it is so difficult to convince a true believer that they are mistaken. Presenting them with science and evidence results in the backfire effect. If you have any methods that are successful then please share them.
Frank,
“The point I was trying to make, very simplistically for jm, is that the temperature of the hands is not warmer than that of the body.”
What made you think that Trish was saying that the hands would get warmer than body temperature? You do tend toward reading what you want to read, rather than what’s actually written. But in this case, it seems like you’re trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug for yourself.
Once again, have Trish assume whatever position she normally practices reiki. Measure the temperature coming off of her hands. Then have her practice reiki. (This will not involve any body movement, rubbing of hands, etc). Measure the temperature coming off of her hands. Easy peasy.
I’m not sure why you’re having such a hard time with this.
(Personally, I don’t think you’re having such a hard time with this. I think you realize that doing that simple experiment will show that Trish’s hands will get warmer. Trish has probably done this a lot – so going through the mental reiki procedure, her shoulders will relax, breathing will change, muscles in the arms will relax. She’ll get better blood flow to her hands, her hands will get warmer. After that simple experiment, you can add in a “patient”, and see what happens when they are in proximity to ssomeone who is not holding uneccessary tension in their body. Another very simple experiment. Then, you could look at what happens to someone’s circulation when they relax, then what happens with better circulation, etc etc. But first things first – as Trish was suggesting – measure the temperature of the practitioner’s hands, without a patient. This would be your cue to focus on some minutia…either from what was written or conjured from you mind…or resort to insult, invoke witchraft, or whatever. Anything to distract from simply measuring temperature.)
Jm, If Frank ever falls off his donkey, he’ll make such a small thud that even the donkey won’t notice it.
Pete,
Stick to scones at the church fete, you are better at that than humour.
@ jm on Sunday 22 May 2016 at 15:59
When I take advice from some charlatan, who thinks bruising people with a stick is some form of healthcare, is the time the moon will turn blue permanently. You should move to Haiti; apparently witchcraft is big there.
Beat your stick elsewhere, I’m not interested.
Well, that was unpredictable.
When I take advice from a charlatan, who responds to my science- and evidence-based comments with “Stick to scones at the church fete, you are better at that than humour.” it is, perhaps, long overdue for me to reply along the lines of: “You should move to Haiti; apparently witchcraft is big there.”; and “Beat your stick elsewhere, I’m not interested.”
However, I don’t issue such tempting replies because they are wholly illogical. If Frank Collins was genuinely *not interested* then he would not persist with his self-defeating, self-refuting, antagonistic replies.
Professor Ernst has repeatedly demonstrated that those who persist with ad hominem attacks do so because they lack solid evidence to back their claims, and they abjectly refuse to entertain the notion that they are mistaken in their beliefs — even when presented with overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
These may suit you better in your current state;
http://laughinglemonpie.com/boozy_scones/
If reiki energy is some sort of electromagnetism transfer of energy we should be able to detect heat or light upon effect (let’s put aside the “how it work”). We don’t see anything, so two possibilities : It does not exist. Or it’s some of mystical undetectable “life energy”. First proposition seems more correct.
jm you are saying “But the effects of electromagnetism are measurable. So when you say “what you believe this reiki ‘energy’ is…” – it’s not a belief system. It’s just physics. ” how can you not then deny reiki ? If the effect are measurable why no one is able to do so ? (and it’s very simple with today technology) Because reiki is not elecromagnetism, it’s belief and nothing else. It’s just pure logical thinking that you are missing.
Quark – ” how can you not then deny reiki ?” You’re talking about using reiki as a therapy – actually using the inherent forces of empty space therapeutically. I’m just talking about reiki itself, not the therapy.
” If the effect are measurable why no one is able to do so ?” The effects of the weather are measurable, and no one is able to channel those effects therapeutically. But weather does exist, it is not a belief system.
“Because reiki is not elecromagnetism, it’s belief and nothing else.” Reiki the therapy is not electromagnetism. But the term that the therapy is named after certainly is. That’s what the word means.
“It’s just pure logical thinking that you are missing” Actually, what’s missing here is the ability to separate the therapy from the term it’s named after. Suppose for a moment that there was evidence that ultrasound therapy doesn’t work. It would be silly to say “Since there is no evidence that ultrasound therapy works therapeutically, ultrasound does not exist.”
I’m not saying that ultrasound therapy doesn’t work, by the way. I’m also not saying that reiki therapy does work. Again, Alan was asking about the specific energy, not the therapy. Using empty space therapeutically is a different issue.
Indeed. We’ve seen all sorts of obfuscation from jm yet he still seems unable to answer simple questions about the ‘reiki energy’ he keeps going on about. It seems he’d rather talk about anything else but.
Alan, I honestly can’t tell if you’re trying to be funny or if you really don’t understand that Edzard is referring to a therapy called ‘reiki’ in his post. The name was appropriated in the early 1900’s for the therapy. The term, used to describe atmospheric conditions / the electromagnetic qualities of empty space, is from the 3rd or 4th century BC.
You asked about the energy, not the therapy. It’s not that hard, and hardly obscure.
Bjorn should chime in about fairies and Voldemort about now.
@jm
I’m not asking about what Prof Ernst was referring to; I’m not interested in the etymology of the word.
sanjay first mentioned ‘reiki energy’ but was unable to answer a very simple question about it: I want to know how ‘reiki energy’ can be measured. You came into the conversation but you’ve not been able to answer my question either.
If you don’t know, please just clearly say so so that we can move the conversation along instead of being sidetracked into pointless meta-discussions.
What I’ve been describing to you is reiki energy (which is a redundate phrase – you don’t need to include the word energy, that would be the ki part of the term). I’m not giving you the etymology of the word – just the definition.
The etymology is quite interesting, though.
And defining the term if far from being sidetracked into pointless meta-discussion. If you’re going to discuss the therapy of reiki, you should understand the term that it’s named after (since that’s what it’s claiming to utilise).
@jm
Let me try to make this clear: we can maybe discuss the etymology later; we can maybe discuss the therapy itself later. But first can we agree on how the fuck this ‘reiki energy’ can be measured? Once we’ve agreed on that – if, indeed we can – we can start to worry about where it originates, how it can be manipulated by a human being and how it could be used for benefit or harm. But, until we have a some kind of idea how it could be measured, all those other things are moot.
@Alan
Yes, sanjay mentioned ‘reiki energy’. That doesn’t make the phrasing less redundant.
I’ve told you how the fuck reiki can be measured. If you want to believe that vacuum, atmospheric pressure, and electric potential energy (all would be considered reiki) are unmeasureable mystical forces…so be it. Grab your torch, form a mob, and hunt down Frankenstein’s monster. If you can’t get past the term, or the appropriation of the term by an alternative therapy…that’s your option.
Let me try to make this clear: I’ve told you that I have no idea if it can be manipulated by humans in the way that reiki (the therapy) claims to. I don’t even care. But when people claim to be dealing with science and evidence, and don’t understand the meaning of the terms they are discussing…I find that relatively disturbing.
Until you understand the term that the therapy appropriated, all other things are moot. It’s not that difficult of a concept.
Quark, you are wasting your time debating jm. When it comes to science, jm has more than amply demonstrated his/her wilful obscurantism and wilful ignorance in endless pathetic attempts to promote quackery (via being a science- and evidence-based medicine denialist) on Professor Ernst’s website.
To think of jm as a supporter of pseudoscience would be a category error: jm promulgates anti-science.
As Ernst and Singh in “Trick or Treatment” made brilliantly clear in their introduction to and in the body of their brilliant book (and as the more articulate who expose the quackery that is nearly all of “alternative and complimentary” medicine also explain… among them Steven Barrett on Quackwatch and the Science Based Medicine site):
It’s of somewhat secondary importance that the explanation of how Reiki works is such obvious bullshit on the face of it, and violates all we know of physics and medicine. One can point out that it violated what then was considered common sense and existing experience with and knowledge of medicine to suggest that citrus juice might treat or cure scurvy, or that ulcers were caused by bacteria, not stomach acid. To be sure, as Carl Sagan is often quoted as saying, “extraordinary hypotheses call for extraordinarily strong proofs / confirmations”, but the bottom line is that it’s NOT necessary to know how something works in order to test whether or not it has merit… especially in the area of medical treatments. Clinical trials when carefully and honestly constructed (in contrast to the shams… dishonest and/or incompetent… often done in the world of complementary and alternative medicine) can confidently show whether a treatment has merit. These trials have been constructed, have been done, and show beyond the slightest iota of doubt (at the same level we know the earth is round, not flat, or that the earth revolves around the sun, not the reverse, or that we are here by natural selection, not some non-existent god created by man in superstition and ignorance) that homeopathy, reiki, acupuncture, and most other “alternative and complementary medicine” is TOTAL FRAUD. TOTALLY WORTHLESS (that is, no better in efficacy than a placebo).
Those are the facts. Frankly, as a doctor, I would have PREFERRED GREATLY that the clinical trails had shown alternative medicine to be valuable in treating disease. There’s nothing I’d have liked to see more than more effective means by which to deal with disease, for our abilities to provide effective treatments (let alone full cures) of disease is still very much in its infancy, and sadly very limited in many cases. Unfortunately, the studies have been done… done well enough and extensively enough that there is no reason what so ever to repeat them or do more, in the case of homeopathy, Reiki, and nearly all of acupuncture as well.
BTW: Note that it took almost 400 years for people understand HOW and WHY citrus juice cured and prevented scurvy. And that to this day we have no idea how inhalational anesthetics work, even tho we know they DO work and know a great deal about how to use them.
MHG MD
Here’s something for our “dada” connoisseur to gloat over:
What a silly discussion.
Of course “Qi” or whatever you choose to call it, is not quantifiable. It is singularity. Just like other popular fabulations. There is only one “Santa”, one “tooth-fairy”, one “Qi” and so on. (There are thirteen “Yule lads” in the Icelandic folklore but that is a special case).
There is no need to measure or quantify “Qi”. I guess you can count the heads containing a quantum[sic] each of the belief but the result of such a quantification does not mean that if there are more “Qi”-believers in USA than the UK that the “Qi” is stronger over there.
It is the same Santa,,, eh, sorry… the same “Qi” all over. There is of course no “Qi” in a head that has never heard of it but Reiki masters can manipulate “Qi”. They earn money by putting the ideas into other peoples heads, thereby channeling and propagating the illusion. But it is the same “Qi” anyway Then there is only the question how long it will stick. For some it is permanently bonded as seems to be the case with our local dada-specialist 😀
Oh, sorry Bjorn. I commented to Alan before your comment came up in my feed. Carry on.
http://www.ministrydudes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/crystal-ball-ljxmtsnc.jpg
Well well jm what’s the “inherent forces of empty space” ? And how this would be therapeuthic in any way ? And how could we use them ? Because human body is far from an empty space.
I know no “forces of empty space”, if you dare to talk about very specific Casimir effect you are more out of it than it’s possible to be. There is 4 forces in physics, choose one to begin (so it’s not electromagnetism you say, so there is only 3 left).
Pete628 : I see i might be hitting my head against the wall, but the “inherent forces of empty space definition is tingling me.
Hi Quark,
I’m sure this isn’t a complete list, as it’s been years since having this conversation with a physicist friend of mine. Her love of free space was its ability to transfer electromagnetic energy so effectively, making a wonderful canvas for study. So her favorite inherent quality/force of free space was electric potential energy (measured in joules, I believe). My personal favoite is vacuum. My wife’s is atmospheric pressure (which I would argue is an effect of empty space, not an inherent quality…).
Some people consider quantum fluctuation to be an inherent aspect of free space. Regardless, the electromagnetic potential of free space (reiki) at least includes vacuum, atmospheric pressure, electric potential energy.
When Alan commented “What ‘inherent qualities of empty space [that] are actually quite useful’?” I really thought he was kidding. Since without empty space…we wouldn’t have light bulbs. The empty space/vacuum in light bulbs would be reiki.
As far as “Because human body is far from an empty space.”, I think you’re wrong there. We’re mostly empty space. The current thinking is that the space between the nucleus and electrons is empty. Since we’re made of atoms…that’s a lot of empty space. The electric potential energy in the free space that we’re made of would also be called reiki.
How any of this would be used therapeutically…I don’t know. I’ve said that many times on this thread. Some commenters here can’t understand that there is a difference between reiki (a description/model of physical forces in nature) and reiki (the therapy that claims to use these forces), which I find quite odd. Asking “what is reiki energy?” is very different than asking “what is reiki therapy?”.
But you can’t have a useful discussion on reiki therapy without understanding what is mean by reiki itself. You can certainly discuss therapeutic effectiveness without understanding it, but you can’t say “reiki doesn’t exist”. Not without sounding incredibly superstitious or unscientific anyway.
I think “jm” hit the nail on the head. Not even Reiki-practitioners understand what it is.
“jm” m doesn’t either. I was trying to tabulate all his/her many different versions in her/his many attempts at explanations but this blog is not easily searchable so I’ll let it rest.
jm said:
Oh! I thought this was a post on alt med, not physics, so I assumed you were talking about the ‘inherent qualities of empty space’ in relation to reiki therapy, most of which, I understand, is carried out on Earth at STP. That’s why I asked the question. But damn it, I see you’ve evaded answering the question yet again:
What value is measured when reiki energy is measured?
PS You’re wrong about the light bulbs, by the way. But don’t let that distract you yet again.
Really? Are you sure the invention of the light bulb didn’t rely on vacuum? hmmm…I stand corrected. You should correct the wikipedia page. You’re really sure?
Last time I’ll remind you – you asked about the energy, not the therapy in the first part of your question. Remember? And, “the inherent qualities of empty space in relation to reiki therapy” – (this is really getting tiresome) reiki the therapy claims to utilize reiki (the energy). Here’s my last attempt, since I’m starting to believe you that you really aren’t getting it. I’ll write the words differently, to differentiate.
rei ki – electromagnetic potential of free space
Reiki – a therapy that claims to utilize rei ki
See the difference there? One includes vacuum, atmospheric pressure, electric potential energy, etc. But it’s a Japanese word for it. The other one is an unproven therapy.
Your original question was “perhaps you could explain – in scientific terms – what you believe this reiki ‘energy’ is, how it can be transferred and what the right procedures are?”
I read that as a two part question:
1. what is rei ki (“perhaps you could explain – in scientific terms – what you believe this reiki ‘energy’ is”)
2. how does Reiki work (“perhaps you could explain – in scientific terms – how it can be transferred and what the right procedures are?”)
My interest in rei ki (ling qi, in Chinese) has nothing to do with Reiki. But I thought I could answer the first part of the question for you. And I did, several times. Silly me, I thought you genuinely wanted to know. You fooled me twice (first time I thought you genuinely wanted to know what was meant by qi, but if you didn’t get it from Tom’s really well written tutorial…I should have left it at that).
Next time hopefully I’ll remember that you don’t REALLY want an answer, but would rather stick with what you think you already know. It’s an interesting approach to science…but hey, whatever works for you.
As for part 2 of your question…again, I have no idea. I’m very serious about that. I’ve had it explained to me, I’ve seen it used quite skillfully, and without a doubt the person got the results they claimed to be able to get. Repeatedly. But I still don’t believe it. I’d bet you a good bottle of Scotch that I’m a bigger skeptic than you are.
jm, I have no doubt whatsoever that your interest is in ling qi, which is the Chinese folk religion term for “divine energy” or “effervescence”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion#Ling_and_xianling.E2.80.94holy_and_numen
As Tom Kennedy explained: “It isn’t possible to give you ‘solid evidence’ of Yin and Yang or Qi, because they are philosophical concepts rather than discrete things that can be seen under a microscope.” To which I agreed:
http://edzardernst.com/2013/01/gua-sha-torture-or-treatment/#comment-59774
In 21st Century science and medicine these concepts are, at best, total utter bollocks, but anti-science promulgators, such as yourself, still bandy around these terms in the pretence that they are still valid.
You wrote “My interest in rei ki (ling qi, in Chinese) has nothing to do with Reiki”. Then why the hell are you polluting the comments section of this article with claims such as “rei ki – electromagnetic potential of free space” and insinuating that rei ki is the Japanese equivalent of Qi/Chi.
The ONLY thing you seem to understand is how to repeatedly use variations of the weasel words: “That isn’t what I said.”; “What I wrote isn’t what I believe.”; and “I’d bet you a good bottle of Scotch that I’m a bigger skeptic than you are.”
Pete, you should re-read Tom’s comment that you link to.
jm, you should answer my comment in this thread instead of keep digging yourself into your ever increasing hole of anti-science dick-waving:
http://edzardernst.com/2013/04/reiki-neither-plausible-nor-effective-nor-harmless/#comment-61049
Pete, you mean this question: “How does Reiki (the treatment) work?” You were serious? I thought I was pretty clear that I have no idea how or if Reiki works. Perhaps in your superstitious, fundamentalist fervor you missed that.
jm, of course you don’t know how Reiki works BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK. The clue that you keep missing is in the title of this article ” Reiki: neither plausible, nor effective, nor harmless”.
Invoking ki, qi, or chi to explain how Reiki, acupuncture, and other energy quackery “works” is anti-science bullshit based on vitalism and/or other appeals to antiquity.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vitalism
Your invocation of quantum in the comments demonstrates just how desperate you are to believe in magic.
QUOTE:
The logical process runs something like this:
1. I want magic to exist.
2. I don’t understand quantum.
3. Therefore, quantum could mean magic exists.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo
Oh, well if it’s in the TITLE…why didn’t you say so in the first place?
I made it more than abundantly clear on 15 April 2013 at 00:39:
http://edzardernst.com/2013/04/reiki-neither-plausible-nor-effective-nor-harmless/#comment-31641
Perhaps in your superstitious, fundamentalist fervor you missed that.
jm, you just haven’t responded to “what’s are the FORCES inherent of an empty space” ? You changed it for “qualities” so you are just mixing the term and be less and less clear, in physics forces have a precise definition, if you won’t stick at what you are saying you speak gibberish. By the way…
“My personal favoite is vacuum” that doesn’t mean anything… A free space is a vaccum, well it’s more a vacuum is a free space free of physical particle… And it depend if you are recalling to classical or quantum deifintion of vacuum.
“So her favorite inherent quality/force of free space was electric potential energy”
It’s not a “force”, we may call it a “quality” but why a so imprecise term…
“Some people consider quantum fluctuation to be an inherent aspect of free space. Regardless, the electromagnetic potential of free space (reiki) at least includes vacuum, atmospheric pressure, electric potential energy.”
So now reiki include electromagnetic potential ? Are you just trolling by changing what you are saying in every “answers” ? And now it’s also quantum field theory, i was almost sure to see the quantum escape. Your sentence is still cryptic “the electromagnetic potential of free space at least includes vacuum” there is one thing in vacuum in quantum field theory, the point of zero potential energy (also called “ground state”) wich permit to respect Heinsenberg indetermination.
“When Alan commented “What ‘inherent qualities of empty space [that] are actually quite useful’?” I really thought he was kidding. Since without empty space…we wouldn’t have light bulbs. The empty space/vacuum in light bulbs would be reiki.”
You should be more accurate because this is nonsense. And you really should look at what is vacuum… In classical physics it’s an empty space (particles and fields), so there is no such thing in a light bulb. In quantum physics the vacuum is the ground state of fields (lowest possible energy), it’s not the case either in a light bulb.
“As far as “Because human body is far from an empty space.”, I think you’re wrong there. We’re mostly empty space. The current thinking is that the space between the nucleus and electrons is empty. Since we’re made of atoms…that’s a lot of empty space. The electric potential energy in the free space that we’re made of would also be called reiki.”
Ok there you are just all dreaming. The atoms of our matter interact with each other, right ? Or we shouldn’t be here. The “empty space” between atom are what we are calling fields, so it’s not vacuum from classic physics point of view, and it’s not vacuum from quantum physics point of view because those fields are clearly not at ground state, there is a lot of exanges and interactions.
“How any of this would be used therapeutically…I don’t know. I’ve said that many times on this thread. Some commenters here can’t understand that there is a difference between reiki (a description/model of physical forces in nature) and reiki (the therapy that claims to use these forces), which I find quite odd. Asking “what is reiki energy?” is very different than asking “what is reiki therapy?”. ”
Why call it “reiki” instead of vacuum, maybe because you have no clue of what is vacuum (or reiki) ? Because in all that you say I still can’t see a clear statement of what is reiki : a force ? yes, no ? electromagnetism, yes, no ? A description of physical forces in nature ? Really ? Which forces for Feynman sake ? Now it can describe all the physical forces ? So it’s more complete than actual physics, how interesting ! And how an “invention” from some thounsands years could have been talking about quantum fluctuation of vacuum ? Such wasted time from Einstein and other !
“But you can’t have a useful discussion on reiki therapy without understanding what is mean by reiki itself. You can certainly discuss therapeutic effectiveness without understanding it, but you can’t say “reiki doesn’t exist”. Not without sounding incredibly superstitious or unscientific anyway.”
You just don’t know what you are talking about, right ? Just give a definition of reiki already, instead of mumbo jumboing things with each other, learn the definition of term and then write something understandable please.
Well said, Quark. You saved me having to waste time responding.
So, is there still no one who can answer my simple question: What value is measured when reiki energy is measured?
Quark – “It’s not a “force”, we may call it a “quality” but why a so imprecise term…”
Because it’s a pretty imprecise term. It’s from a time when people realized that what was thought to be just empty space actually has “stuff” going on, and has the ability to affect things – so it must not be empty after all. Relatively recently, we’ve started to determine what some of the “stuff” is. Electromagnetism, strong and weak interaction. Maybe all four fundamental forces (that we’ve identified so far) are involved – is gravity related to empty space?
The term comes from a culture that focuses on function and relationship over measurement. So rei ki (or ling qi) also would include the qualities of empty space like vacuum. Anything inherent to empty space that can evoke change. If you look at an empty coffee cup, there’s a term for the usable empty space where the coffee would go – and there’s a term for the inherent unseen “stuff” in that empty space, which would be rei ki. If you create a vacuum and attach the coffee cup to yourself, the vacuum quality of the empty space would also be considered rei ki.
So how would you measure rei ki? Depends on what aspect you’re talking about.
“Why call it “reiki” instead of vacuum”. There’s a term for vacuum, and it would fall under the category of rei ki.
“And how an “invention” from some thounsands years could have been talking about quantum fluctuation of vacuum ? Such wasted time from Einstein and other !” An invention? No, an observation. Wasted time I guess would be a matter of opinion – I think it’s pretty cool that we can observe and quantify what was once considered invisible.
“Just give a definition of reiki already, instead of mumbo jumboing things with each other, learn the definition of term and then write something understandable please.” I’m guessing this is why terms like qi and rei ki have short, poetic translations – in a culture where measurement is king, we want precise answers and we want them now. So qi gets translated as “energy” or “life force” or something equally poetic.
So the common answer for “what is rei ki”, if all you want is a straight up fast food answer: mysterious energy. If you want to understand it better, you have to give up the need for a simple definition, and dig a bit deeper than a simplistic “what value is measured when reiki energy is measured”. If that’s the level of understanding you want, stick with “mysterious energy”, because without digging into the nuance of the term, mysterious is what it will remain.
jm, I’ll suggest an explanation for your last paragraph to Alan on 28 August 2014 at 08:13 and I’d genuinely like to know what you think of it.
You wrote: “As for part 2 of your question…again, I have no idea. I’m very serious about that. I’ve had it explained to me, I’ve seen it used quite skillfully, and without a doubt the person got the results they claimed to be able to get. Repeatedly. But I still don’t believe it. I’d bet you a good bottle of Scotch that I’m a bigger skeptic than you are.”
Let’s just discuss this as non-believers — two skeptics trying to figure out what we’ve personally observed and why it doesn’t seem to match the scientific evidence.
How does Reiki (the treatment) work?
According to my understanding, well conducted placebo controlled trials of Reiki show that it works no better than placebo. However, this doesn’t mean that Reiki has no observable beneficial effect. What is being compared is Reiki versus sham Reiki (the placebo). Another way of putting this is that the comparison is between:
Treatment: Reiki, including rei ki energy.
Placebo: Some/most theatrical elements of Reiki, but excluding rei ki.
The results strongly indicate that the treatment is no better than the placebo therefore logic forces me to conclude that rei ki plays an insignificant part in the Reiki treatment process. Perhaps rei ki doesn’t exist or it is too weak in Reiki to have a measurable therapeutic effect.
You and I have both observed that Reiki (also sham Reiki in my case) does sometimes/often have a useful positive effect on the patient. When we try to explain how something works it’s very tempting to search the literature and understand the history of the subject. In the case of Reiki, we find that rei ki seems to be the explanation. As skeptics, it is our duty to firstly question whether we have made an error because the easiest person to fool is ourself — it’s much easier to detect mistakes made by others than our own mistakes.
If you can mostly agree with what I’ve written above then here’s my suggestion for you to consider…
Our personal observations of Reiki were comparing people before and after receiving Reiki treatment and listening to their testimonial evidence. Let’s be skeptical: the trials weren’t comparing Reiki to no treatment; they were comparing Reiki to sham Reiki. Because sham Reiki is as effective as Reiki we mustn’t attempt to explain Reiki in terms of rei ki energy. Invoking rei ki as the explanation leaves us with the huge problem of not having begun to explain how the sham Reiki works. Other skeptics might reasonably accuse us of invoking magic as the explanation. We must instead explain why and how the placebo of sham Reiki works.
What do you think, jm? By all means point out the errors I’ve made in the above.
hi everybody, for the last time reiki as a treatment has been proved years ago to be innefective, google the emily rosa experiment.”reiki masters” dont want the population to find out that reiki treatment is bogus because it will mean they will have to go out and find “real” jobs and that would be hard to swallow after being a reiki ( the treatment ) scam artist.
“Because it’s a pretty imprecise term. It’s from a time when people realized that what was thought to be just empty space actually has “stuff” going on, and has the ability to affect things – so it must not be empty after all”
You know after few hundred years of studies all over the world you can start to use new term that’s are precise instead of stick to the old mystic stuff. No one (at least no one that is a little rationnal) will call gravity or EM forces “the hand of god” now. So this is a very feable attempt to justifiy your lack of precision.
“Relatively recently, we’ve started to determine what some of the “stuff” is. Electromagnetism, strong and weak interaction. ”
Oh… like two hundred years ago. And i would say that magnestim was known from ancient greek so lot more than that.
“Maybe all four fundamental forces (that we’ve identified so far) are involved – is gravity related to empty space?”
What are you saying, those forces are not related to empty space… They related to force carriers, you know : gauge boson. I don’t even see what you are meaning in this sentence. Gravity have no gauge boson yet but one is predicted by the actual theory so it’s pretty specific case. But, in any way that have nothing to do with an empty space… It’s the mass or energy that give gravity, the contrary of an empty space. You still don’t understand what is an empty space, keeping using those words without knowing the meaning won’t help you.
“The term comes from a culture that focuses on function and relationship over measurement. So rei ki (or ling qi) also would include the qualities of empty space like vacuum. Anything inherent to empty space that can evoke change. If you look at an empty coffee cup, there’s a term for the usable empty space where the coffee would go – and there’s a term for the inherent unseen “stuff” in that empty space, which would be rei ki. If you create a vacuum and attach the coffee cup to yourself, the vacuum quality of the empty space would also be considered rei ki.”
Reiki = empty space for you, great. Then what… ? Still no answer on how the world this is interesting beyond it’s meaning in the asian culture… ( = what is the interest in medicine or scientific term).
“So how would you measure rei ki? Depends on what aspect you’re talking about. ”
More dodgy response. The aspect of energy because the other parts are fairly obscure, it’s have been said a lot of times.
““Why call it “reiki” instead of vacuum”. There’s a term for vacuum, and it would fall under the category of rei ki.”
If reiki is vacuum call it vacuum even it’s less poetic, we don’t care. People spend hundred of years to define words in physics so everyone can understand each other : if you don’t respect this you are just brassing air.
““And how an “invention” from some thounsands years could have been talking about quantum fluctuation of vacuum ? Such wasted time from Einstein and other !” An invention? No, an observation. Wasted time I guess would be a matter of opinion – I think it’s pretty cool that we can observe and quantify what was once considered invisible.”
You will kill me of boredom. – How reiki can be linked to quantum fluctuations : tell me instrad of more dodgy answer !
“I’m guessing this is why terms like qi and rei ki have short, poetic translations – in a culture where measurement is king, we want precise answers and we want them now. So qi gets translated as “energy” or “life force” or something equally poetic. ”
I understand that measurement embarass you, because it mean progress and reproductibility, two things that reiki is stranger to. And you still dodge, I don’t want a TRANSLATION of the word, I want a clear defition of what is reiki and how it can be linked in any way to human body, a definition with scientific understantable term, not a haiku. If you still manage dodge then you just don’t know what is all about.
“So the common answer for “what is rei ki”, if all you want is a straight up fast food answer: mysterious energy. If you want to understand it better, you have to give up the need for a simple definition, and dig a bit deeper than a simplistic “what value is measured when reiki energy is measured”. If that’s the level of understanding you want, stick with “mysterious energy”, because without digging into the nuance of the term, mysterious is what it will remain.”
That’s priceless. You are saying that reiki is too mysterious to be measured ? An energy is an energy, difference in energy quantity can be measured today (even if you seems to be blocked to one thousand years ago, i swear this possible). So if it’s energy with can see it but no one managed to do so. So two possibilities : it’s a belief (strong one) or it’s “too mysterious for mere scientists” so cut the bullshit it’es probably a belief because even reiki advocate don’t understand what is reiki and what they are doing.
Quark, if light bulbs contain mysterious rei ki perhaps this explains why they don’t last very long 🙂 I shall try to avoid Reiki and rei ki in future because I hope to live longer than the next one or two thousand hours.
No, wait, I’ll invent a new therapy that involves waving a light bulb around while I channel its mysterious energy to heal my clients of all illness. I’ll also sell training courses in this therapy: First degree; Second degree; Master Teacher; and Light Bulb Therapy Master Practitioner.
PS: Your English is easy to understand.
Pete, I wonder then why so-called reiki master can’t “activate” (or whatever they are doing) the “quality of the empty space” of the light bulb to create light by modifiying the state of the energy ? As i understand it might be because this energy is too mysterious to be seen ! I don’t how to not facepalm at this.
“I’ll also sell training courses in this therapy: First degree; Second degree; Master Teacher; and Light Bulb Therapy Master Practitioner.”
Don’t say it too loud it could work… Also, charge the degree with progressive fee and you will make lot of money – i mean lot of therapy healing.
PS : Some error in english, sorry I get hard time on my phone. I still more understantable than reiki.
Quark, your English is fine.
You said “And you still dodge, I don’t want a TRANSLATION of the word, I want a clear defition of what is reiki and how it can be linked in any way to human body”
That’s basically what Alan asked at the beginning of this mess. And I answered him. He claimed not to understand, and asked the same question. So I reworded the answer. This happened several times. But if you look at my first answer to Alan, it answers the first part of your question:
Rei is the electromagnetic potential of free space.
Ki is electromagnetism.
Is that not clear enough?
@jm
Now you’ve sorted that out, can you please now try to answer the question you have – so far – not answered?
What value is measured when reiki energy is measured?
And if you think you have already done that, you have plainly not understood this simple – and it would seem, revealing – question.
So if you understood this time, why all the back and forth bullshit?
You tell me what value is measured when electromagnetism is measured.
@jm
I’m not sure why you expect me to answer a question different to the one I asked you.
I asked you: What value is measured when reiki energy is measured?
We’ve not sorted out the units of measurement (Pa, J, foot-poundals, V•m-1, furlongs per fortnight or whatever), nor the measuring instrument, so maybe asking for a value is expecting too much. But if you still can’t answer it, please just say so.
I’ve told you many times that (I believe, on a few threads) that I have no idea how electromagnetism is measured. So since I’ve answered you, yet again, answer mine: why all the back and forth bullshit if you understood the first time?
Well, that wasn’t what I asked, but I think it might be as well to give up. Unless someone other than jm can both understand what I am asking and try to provide an answer?
So while waiting for someone who understands your question and has an answer, answer mine: if you understood the first time, why all the back and forth bullshit?
You clearly did not understand the question (as evidenced by your forays into a plethora of irrelevances) and I doubt you do yet.
Not arguing with you there. But I’m sure you understand my question.
“Rei is the electromagnetic potential of free space.
Ki is electromagnetism.
Is that not clear enough?”
It’s better than before. But still “electromagnetic potential of free space” is by definition = 0 or it’s not a free space (in the “empty” meaning of it). So Rei is something that doesnt exist then or that have a value of 0 so it can’t do anything.
I always want to know what is the link with the quantum fluctuation that you mentioned before and how rei can happen in human body, human body that have no empty space in physics meaning of the word. (it could bring an answer at the therapeutic use).
Anyway here we go again to the : if it’s a “form” of electromagnetism, let’s say “something that can modify the electromagnetic potential of a field” (so we forget the “free space”) then we can measure those modification of state easily by the presence of heat, light, or other radiation, anything related to EM and EM energy. And, in hundred years no one can do this very easy experiment (it’s a macro scale experiment after all, so far from the quantum physics scale), so that’s probably a belief – why not accept this ? why not accepting that people, thousand years ago got wrong onto the physics, nothing to blame it’s like this that progress are made.
If you add “the empty space” thing in it, all fall apart because it litterally have no sense anymore.
“It’s better than before.” It’s the same as before.
“that have a value of 0 so it can’t do anything.” It can’t.
“I always want to know what is the link with the quantum fluctuation that you mentioned before and how rei can happen in human body” Me too.
“so that’s probably a belief – why not accept this ?” I do.
“If you add “the empty space” thing in it, all fall apart because it litterally have no sense anymore.” You seem to be under the impression that I coined that term. I didn’t. You also seem to be under the impression that I’m in some way defending, or trying to support the whole idea. I’m not.
I do know that the practice of Reiki doesn’t claim to produce any particular energy in and of itself, but to utilize what already exists. I’m not claiming that it can do that, I’m not claiming to personally understand the nuances of what they are trying to do. And I’m certainly not trying to personally claim to understand the nuances of empty space.
“why not accepting that people, thousand years ago got wrong onto the physics, nothing to blame it’s like this that progress are made.” I do accept that. I also think that progress is made by trying to understand what people thousands of years ago were observing, rather than just dismissing it outright. From the comments I’ve seen you make, I would assume you agree with that.
jm, if you genuily think that your precedent statement was clear in anyway you should really try to re-read them and pay attention to the term you use, because i don’t think i’m the only one getting hard time to understand what you really want to say.
last thinking on : “I also think that progress is made by trying to understand what people thousands of years ago were observing, rather than just dismissing it outright. From the comments I’ve seen you make, I would assume you agree with that.”
Nothing is dismissed outright in science, there is always a man waiting to prove you that you are wrong. Science is the only matter where you can be right or wrong because of the experiment telling you the thruth. I think a lot of people studied reiki and “life energy” in general, with finding absolutely no evidence so far so we shouldn’t put money and apply treatement on patient, it’s not honnest.
Quark – “if you genuily think that your precedent statement was clear in anyway you should really try to re-read them ” I only meant my original comment to Alan. I copy/pasted exactly what I wrote, without the ‘basically’. The rest of it certainly is quite convoluted, my apologies. All of the things I mentioned would be considered rei ki…but I’m not a physicist and not very articulate with the terminology.
One last attempt, though. Hopefully this won’t make things worse. I have a friend who gets a bit irritated when people use the word electricity. She says it’s a very unclear term, and could refer to anything from electrical current, to electric charge, to a host of other related things. Rei ki is similar in that it’s a broad term, not specific. For specifics, there are other terms.
Since you do seem to be physics articulate, I have a question for you. We were talking about free space in the body. This is from a site on very basic physics (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae222.cfm):
“The empty space between the atomic cloud of an atom and its nucleus is just that: empty space, or vacuum. That’s the simple answer, but there are a few subtleties:
1) Sub-atomic particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons need to be treated as quantum objects. Thus they have a wavefunction which can be *thought of* as the ‘spread’ in the particle’s location. Electrons are thus ‘spread out’ quite a bit in their orbits about the nucleus. In fact, the wave-functions for electrons in s-orbitals about a nucleus actually extend all the way down into the nucleus itself. In this sense, then, the space between the electrons and the nucleus isn’t really ’empty.’
2) The electrons and the protons/neutrons are constantly interacting, either electromagnetically or through the weak force. In quantum field theory we would say that these particles are constantly exchanging photons (in the case of electromagnetism) or heavy gauge bosons (in the case of the weak force). Thus you might say that the otherwise ’empty’ space between the electrons and nucleus is ‘filled’ with these quanta carrying forces.”
While a very basic write-up, what is being described would be called rei ki. In your opinion, how accurate is their write-up? And, thanks for any help with this. I can give you some background on why I’m asking, but it’s way off topic…
jm, their explanation are simple but not bad. However this sentence “Despite these two quantum-mechanical subtleties, it’s still correct to say that the space between the electrons and nucleus in atoms is truly empty space” is contradictory with their precedent statement… They litteraly said “that’s not empty because of this and that, but it’s truly empty”. I don’t like this kind of mixing mind. There is no empty space between atom in matter because of very, very powerful electromagnetic fields, fields able to deviate a lot of radiations type and able to prevent matter from collapsing (and preventing you to go through without hurting yourself). In purely quantic point of view (and you need it if you want to go in deep atomic scale comprehension), fields are considered empty only if they are at ground state, but interacting particle are not, so this is not “empty” at the very definition of quantum physics. So if rei ki is about “empty” fields it can’t happen here. It can happen only in very specifical laboratory case with artificial free space devoid of any particle (or very little particle because you can’t really go to true empty space).
Then if rei ki is more about EM particles interactions (like i supposed here : “something that can modify the electromagnetic potential of a field” (so we forget the “free space”)“ we should see it in action very easily but that not the case.
Thanks Quark. A couple of more questions, if you don’t mind.
“In purely quantic point of view (and you need it if you want to go in deep atomic scale comprehension), fields are considered empty only if they are at ground state, but interacting particle are not, so this is not “empty” at the very definition of quantum physics.”
Empty (ground state) still wouldn’t be absolutely empty, if I’m understanding this right?
Wikipedia’s entry on ground state: “The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system. An excited state is any state with energy greater than the ground state. The ground state of a quantum field theory is usually called the vacuum state or the vacuum.”
Wikipedia’s entry on vacuum state: “In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles.”
If wikipedia is accurate, empty is ground state, ground state is lowest energy state, lowest energy state is also called vacuum state. If this is accurate, why could you not phrase this as “electromagnetic potential of empty space”?
I’m asking because I’m really not clear where the confusion came into play.
“If wikipedia is accurate, empty is ground state, ground state is lowest energy state, lowest energy state is also called vacuum state. If this is accurate, why could you not phrase this as “electromagnetic potential of empty space”? I’m asking because I’m really not clear where the confusion came into play.”
Well this kind of question are very complicated on a very complicated topic…
I would say because there is no eletromagnetic potential in quantic vacuum. If an EM potential were detected that mean there is particle interacting, so it’s not empty anymore. Remember that we were talking about “empty space” in matter, so you can’t talk about em potential of “empty space” because it’s full of particles. I will try to explain what is quantic vacuum and “virtual particles” further, but not knowing if it will be clear because it’s not easy topic if you are not acclimated to QFT calculus.
You have to understand that quantic vacuum is complicated and got a long history. It’s the lowest state of energy (that doesn’t mean 0 energy, but delta0 energy and it does’t mean that you can take this energy) possible to go along with heisenberg indertermination and to prevent some problem in calculation. Some speak about quantic fluctuation of empty space (provoked by the fact of delat0), and EM field of empty space, but this more an artifact coming from perturbative method of calculus used in quantum fields theory (qft). Today it’s very easy to describe free particle in QFT, also called “real particle”, but when it come to observable in physical interactions you have to change your approach or it’s simply impossible. In perturbative method you state that when there is an interaction between point A and B there is X transitions states called virtual particles, considering transition state as particles can allow you to describe them as free particles (but “virtual” this time) and come to the first case. Virtual particles can’t be seen, they are an artifact of the method of calculus employed allowing you to “quantify” the field, if we were able to exactely calculate the transition state in quantum field theory we would not need them. But it’s not clearly determined between physicist, some still looking for the “virtual particles”, one of the most known experiment is Casimir effect that was supposed to show “vacuum pressure” of EM field of vacuum particles, but this can be explained by other effect like Van der vaals force of the London dispersive type. Most of the virtual particles “believers” are like “well the calculus work like that so the particles exist” but it might just be mathematical model and we got absolutely no proof of virtual particles. You can’t detect virtual particle because they describle transition states of fields, so you can’t really talk about “em potential of virtual particle” – eg : em potential of empty space (true quantic vacuum) provoked by quantum fluctuations.
Hi Quark, thanks for taking the time to explain all of this – I truly appreciate it. I was under the impression that a true quantic vacuum did not exist, that delta0 was a close as possible, so it’s simply referred to as empty space because that’s as close as it gets. That space is occupied by either particle or field. Is that accurate?
Quark, if you’re tired of explaining elementary physics…just let me know, and I’ll quit asking you questions.
You said “Well this kind of question are very complicated on a very complicated topic…”, which is true, but you’re doing a great job of explaining it simply.
In the opening paragraph, Edzard wrote “…it is not the energy a physicist might have in mind. It is a much more mystical entity…”. I think a couple thousand years ago, the sub atomic world would have been in the realm of the mystical, but not so much anymore. However, that doesn’t mean it can be used for therapeutic purposes. Your explanations get into why it can’t be used, so again, thanks for taking the time and effort.
“I was under the impression that a true quantic vacuum did not exist, that delta0 was a close as possible, so it’s simply referred to as empty space because that’s as close as it gets. That space is occupied by either particle or field. Is that accurate?”
I’m not sure of your question. True vacuum doesn’t exist pratically. It won’t be occupied by a particle (it’s the definition) but in matter of field it’s more subtle. Light propagate in free space because there is an EM field to interact with light, but before the light propagate, is there a field ? Because fields come from particles interacting, they are mathematical tool to define interaction, if there is no interactions they are not useful so it’s how you want. You can say there is a field but with no value or there is no field it’s the same.
“Quark, if you’re tired of explaining elementary physics…just let me know, and I’ll quit asking you questions.
You said “Well this kind of question are very complicated on a very complicated topic…”, which is true, but you’re doing a great job of explaining it simply.”
Well it’s fine that’s is clear !
It’s also clear that quantic phenomenum and medicine are from 2 differents worlds of interactions, and anyone trying mixing both is usually bullshiting. And it’s the heaven of quack for “alternative” medicine to quantumize everything or trying to modernize obsolete thing like rei ki with the “Q” word.
“I’m not sure of your question. True vacuum doesn’t exist pratically. It won’t be occupied by a particle (it’s the definition) but in matter of field it’s more subtle.”
Yes, that’s what I was asking. Again, thanks.
“Light propagate in free space because there is an EM field to interact with light, but before the light propagate, is there a field ? Because fields come from particles interacting, they are mathematical tool to define interaction, if there is no interactions they are not useful so it’s how you want. You can say there is a field but with no value or there is no field it’s the same.”
If I’m understanding you right, if it can’t be measured or observed, it doesn’t really exist (for practical purposes, anyway)?
“It’s also clear that quantic phenomenum and medicine are from 2 differents worlds of interactions, and anyone trying mixing both is usually bullshiting.”
Personally, I think you’re being too polite. As far as lingqi (rei ki) goes, it would be much closer to the world of quantic phenomenum interactions than medicine – but still bullshit. Lingqi/rei ki belongs in the realm of shamen and mystics. As does the practice of Reiki. Trying to analyze the spiritual world with modern medicine or modern physics is far beyond bullshit. The only real danger is not knowing it’s bullshit, and thinking that definitive assessments can be made.
(Sarcasm alert): During a Reiki attunement, the initiate is taught ‘secret symbols’ to visualize to draw in the Universal Ki. Here is a Google Image link to some: https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1327&bih=1326&q=reiki+symbols
Clearly the founders of Reiki did much clinical research to determine that these symbols work best in accessing and transmitting the Universal Ki. They just can’t share that with the rest of the world because they are secret. SOOPER SEEKRIT!!!11!
The ideogram for Ki (and Qi/Chi) represents steam pushing up the lid on cooking rice. It is used in chemistry to describe a gas (as in Oxygen Qi, Nitrogen Qi). Since this is Universal Qi, you can capture it by cooking rice in outer space. The rabbit on the moon must do this a lot when he gets hungry after compounding the pill of immortality. (That’s a real Chinese myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rabbit)
There are people out there who believe that Qi masters can also light fires and move objects with their mind (but since they are so spiritual, they won’t do it in front of scientists or cameras). While I think it is worth debunking, endlessly arguing with True Believers is, well, endless…
We know what reiki is:
Pronounced: ray-kee. (Japanese: rei, soul, spirit. Ki , vital energy. In Chinese: ch’i or qi) it is a term that was devised by
Mikao Usui (1865-1926) who was a Japanese businessman and Buddhist who also practised Shintoism, a spiritual system which recognises kami – the spirits and deities of animals, trees and mountains. With historical records dating from the seventh century, Shinto folklore and mythology has led to a range of religious practices associated with nature and today is often combined with Buddhist ancestor worship. (Japanese: Shinto; Way of the Gods from Chinese: shin, kami, spirits or deities; and do (tao): philosophical path, way, or study).
The details of the origin of Reiki are shrouded in mystery and have resulted in some dispute, perhaps from an enthusiasm to make it more appealing in the West. In 1922 Usui encountered financial problems with his businesses, stepped back and took a twenty one day Buddist training course at a mountain retreat. This involved prayer, fasting and meditation. At the retreat Usui had a mystical revelation which empowered him with energy and enabled him to develop his Reiki Ryoho Gakkai (Spiritual Energy Therapy Society). He then taught others how to transmit ‘spiritual energy’ to patients.
It is pure spiritual energy which does not exist save in the minds of those who imagive it does. It does not exist in the real, substantive, immanent world – it, and other CAM energies, innate intellegence, meridians, chi, etc. are nonexistent nothingness – wu. I call the path to wellbeing followed by their committed adherents Wudo. (Chinese: wú, nothing, nothingness and also ‘spirit medium; shaman; magician; witch doctor’ + Japanese: dō, way or path). Just as practitioners of judo are judoka, so followers of wudo are wudoka (Japanese: ka, practitioner).
May the wu be with you all.
Richard
Sorry, should read: “It is pure spiritual energy which does not exist save in the minds of those who imagine it does.”
“…it is a term that was devised by Mikao Usui”
Mikao Usui appropriated the term for his practice, he did not invent the term. Not if he was born in 1865, anyway. Unless he was the proud owner of a TARDIS. Wait a minute…you’re not claiming Mikao Usui was a time traveller, are you? Do you have any evidence? I know of no record to indicate that Sojobo instructed on time travel…but I wouldn’t put it past him.
So the most interestingly funny things to come out of this thread:
1. Alan’s assertion that vacuum was not involved in the creation of the light bulb.
2. Pete’s reassertion that yin yang theory is anti-science.
3. Mikao Usui devised the term reiki.
4. The practice of reiki is dangerous.
Sorry Richard, but you’re going to have to do better if you’re going to outdo Pete. Although ‘wudoka’ was a gallant effort.
@jm
Your comprehension skills are failing you again. However, this is still a million miles away from discussing so-called reiki healing.
It’s harmless. What more is there to discuss?
Unfortunately, it would appear that it might not be harmless. That, combined with the fact there also appears to be no good evidence of any specific benefit, seals its fate.
“Unfortunately, it would appear that it might not be harmless.”
I suppose you could stumble getting off of the treatment table.
jm is a stalwart supporter of Gua Sha torture — even to the extent of being proud of the fact that younger than twelve-year-olds can be indoctrinated to perform it:
“It’s so simple you could teach a 12 year old to do it. (Probably younger, but 12 is the youngest I’ve personally seen.)”
http://edzardernst.com/2013/01/gua-sha-torture-or-treatment/#comment-60003
jm is still trying (despite failing abysmally) to scrape away at each one of us in the vain hope that we will, one-by-one, submit to his ‘wounding comments’. He seems to think that he has the power to make us glow bright red from embarrassment by our continually failing to understand his vastly superior ancient wisdom and that we are frightened by his scary ability to manipulate ki/qi/chi.
The only thing that truly frightens me is his gloating over how easy it is to indoctrinate children to perform torture in the name of healing that, in reality, neither cures nor identifies any known illness.
I occasionally use the phrase “the insidious creep of quackery”, which is an amusing double entendre. In this case, I don’t find it at all funny; it’s a grotesque reminder of the depths to which quacks will sink to promulgate their ideology and/or services. This is so disgusting that I cannot think of a suitable phrase to describe it.
Fortunately for so many of us, the dedication of Professor Ernst goes a very long way to protect us from these insidious creeps of quackery.
“jm” is one of the unpersuadables.
We can knead the dough with these types ad absurdum, they will never allow themselves to be pulled through the pain and embarrassment against which their cognitive dissonance is holding fort.
I have been trying to understand their mindset and find out why they never let go despite hitting them repeatedly over the head with facts and reason.
Many of my prodding and poking entries (which “jm” calls “dadaistic” 🙂 without knowing what that is) here have been designed to elicit revealing responses and indeed they have been fruitful.
When money becomes a significant factor in pursuing their chosen quackery cult, as it usually does, they are really beyond help.
The unpersuadables are prone to reason in circles in difficult dialogues as we have seen repeated examples of above, but the cognitive dissonance does not allow them to admit any mistakes. Their worst nightmare seems to be not being able to have the last word in a discussion.
I think the conclusion must be that you simply cannot and should not try to reason with them. It may be fun and revealing but the only sensible way seems to be to ignore them altogether i.e. avoid addressing them in first person but instead address the ambient audience who come here in search of information. Explain to them about reality and what is wrong and unreasonable in the rhetoric of the unpersuadables.
Maybe we can help some to avoid being scraped, cupped, needled, ear candled or have their vertebral arteries torn for no good reason.
Hi Pete,
Let’s get a few things straight and then move on.
1. People aren’t indoctrinated into gua sha. It’s a bodywork technique, nothing more. Families all over the world use it, and kids generally learn from their parents. It’s very safe, and the only side effect is that it strengthens the body.
2. I have absolutely no interest in wounding, embarrassing, etc. Sorry you feel that way – I didn’t think you had that thin of a skin, based on the comments you have made. I’ll be gentler with you.
3. Yin yang theory is simply a way of comparing things. Nothing more. When you say that it is ‘anti-science’ or something of the like, how that reads is “comparing things is unscientific”. If you can’t see the humor in that…
4. Reiki isn’t in any way dangerous. There are no side effects, and it would be the rare individual that would opt for treatment of a serious condition solely with Reiki.
5. I don’t think ancient wisdom is superior. Or inferior. I’m not dogmatic. I realise you don’t think there are any other ways of viewing or organizing the body (or anything else), or that traditional methods are outdated, etc. Fine by me. That thinking makes no sense to me – but you’re free to believe whatever you want. I prefer the right tool for the job, and for many things (like gua sha, for instance) a traditional scientific method of organizing the body is more useful. For heart surgery, a modern view/method would work better. Different tools for different jobs.
6. Referring to gua sha as torture is very disrespectful to people who have suffered actual torture. A little common decency around the topic wouldn’t hurt.
Hope that clears some things up.
yes pete628, i agree with you, the thing that frightens me is that so many people are into it including my brother, as a result of this reiki nonsense my brother ( who is a reiki master ) and i no longer have a relationship and i found my brother to be stubborn as a mule in his support of reiki, i have printed out evidence for him to read but he even refuses to look at it let alone read it, he act as if he is possed by the devil, i find it distressing that he will not even have a rational discussion over it.
Well rei ki have no side effect for sure on body, but it have side effect on money. It’s just not honnest to pretend to heal anything and then just get paid for doing nothing. It’s selling something that doesn’t exist, would you buy an house that doesn’t exist ? Or food that doesn’t exist ? Surely not. So why buy medicine that doesn’t exist ?
I think I mentioned on an earlier comment somewwhere in this mess that I have a friend who practices Reiki, and her work is the only time I’ve seen Reiki do what it purports to do. She was taught that charging money for Reiki (or any other healing practice) is not only unethical, but has a detrimental effect on the process. So she had a day job, and practiced Reiki for those in need, for free.
The other thing she’s pretty clear about is that Reiki is not a medical treatment, it’s a spiritual practice. Anyone trained in Reiki would know that. Any healing of the body is a side effect. So if money is the big danger, Reiki practitioners who charge money for something that doesn’t exist should be compared to the Catholic church, who charges 10% or so of your income for something that doesn’t exist. But both (Reiki and Catholic church) claim to bring comfort for any and all health issues, and both are charging for spiritual help that doesn’t exist, not medicine that doesn’t exist. That would be more of an apples to apples comparison.
I know quite a few Reiki practioners – my friend that I’m talking about is the only one that’s done fairly intensive, ongoing study and practice. The others I know have done a one day or weekend course, and are charging money for their services (although it’s usually combined with massage, and constitutes a very small percentage of the session). Then again, there are MDs who do a weekend course on acupunture and think they know something about it…and charge money for it. Also probably (or hopefully) a small percentage of what they do. Go figure.
hi jm catholic church charges 10% or so of your income, really? gee i dont know where you live but where i live the catholic church only accepts DONATIONS so in fact where i live the catholic church DOES NOT charge for spiritual comfort and as i said elsewhere my brother is a “reiki master” and he DOES charge for his services.
Anyway, for me, catholic church is a bunch of quack too, the “Christ company” like all religion is something that defy logic but i’m very pragmatic man and it’s far from the subject.
You may know one or few reiki practionner who won’t charge anything, but most of them are paid you can’t deny that, and most of them claim to be able to heal diseases so the prob is here. And i don’t understand what is your friend doing, if it’s just spirituality why would you need people to tell you how to be spiritual ? You can’t figure your own philosophy by yourself ? A massage is not “spiritual” it’s just relaxation, so then what reiki practionner who doesn’t claim healing are doing ?
“You may know one or few reiki practionner who won’t charge anything, but most of them are paid you can’t deny that, and most of them claim to be able to heal diseases so the prob is here.”
Actually, there’s no way to know that, since the only publicly known practitioners are the ones advertising and charging. And they are usually the ones combining Reiki and massage.
“A massage is not “spiritual” it’s just relaxation, so then what reiki practionner who doesn’t claim healing are doing ?”
The practice of Reiki doesn’t involve touching the body in any way, and is not massage. If there’s touch involved, it’s being combined with massage.
As for the rest of your comment, I totally agree.
“The practice of Reiki doesn’t involve touching the body in any way, and is not massage. If there’s touch involved, it’s being combined with massage.”
That was my understanding of Reiki, jm, and the few practitioners I’ve met would agree. However, there are many adaptations of Reiki, some use hands-on-healing, others use massage, yet they are all commonly referred to as Reiki.
As with most forms of CAM, Reiki is unregulated (or arbitrarily self-regulated) therefore no precise definition of the practice exists.
“…there are many adaptations of Reiki…”
But we’re talking about Reiki, not adaptations. Reiki is not massage.
“Reiki is unregulated (or arbitrarily self-regulated) therefore no precise definition of the practice exists.”
I don’t think there’s anything arbitrary about definition or regulation. Both would be provided by the person’s teacher.
Again, I agree with you. How would a potential customer/client/patient be able to determine if the practitioner is practicing Reiki or an adaptation of it before paying for their first session? The practitioners of adapted Reiki are under no legal or industry regulated obligation to inform potential clients of their methods of practice.
If it’s a hands on session, it’s no longer Reiki. And in that case, it certainly is regulated (in the US anyway). All hands on therapies are legally (and more important, ethically) obligated to inform patients what they are doing.
Reiki practioners are not legally bound, but it’s part of their practice.
jm said:
Is this guy not doing reiki then?
Beats me. Is there any way to measure what he’s doing? Then we would know for sure…
If they shook hands before shooting the video, that might be considered a hand massage, or at least closer to a hands on therapy than what he’s doing in the video. Perhaps the massage regulatory machine should step in. Do you have any data on the benefit/risk situation for hand shaking? Oy…surrounded by dangers, I tell ya.
And – the person could have stumbled getting off the table! Something really needs to be done about the dangers of Reiki. I bet there were even viscious kittens off camera. Or blinding rainbows.
It seems he is doing reiki.
However, jm said:
We’ve been here before, of course, but I’d still like to know what would be measured and how.
“It seems he is doing reiki.”
Sure it seems that way, but we’ll never know for sure without accurate measurments.
“I’d still like to know what would be measured and how.”
Apparently, you’re going to have to get used to disappointment.
jm said:
Well, the people at reiki.org (the International Center for Reiki Training) would appear to think he’s doing reiki. But perhaps they’re wrong.
Indeed. Unless there is someone else here who knows anything – it seems you know nothing about what a reiki practitioner is ‘transferring’ or how it could be measured.
“But perhaps they’re wrong.”
Only one way to tell – contact them and measure it. They probably have a contact form on their site. And maybe they have a reikiometer they’d let you borrow. Make sure it’s calibrated to 42.
Or you could accept the fact that there is no one answer for what rei ki is. Doubt that will happen though. Since you’re so disturbed by the nuanced meaning of ki (qi)…digging into what rei (ling) means would send you to counselling.
Again, I would recommend you stick with the dictionary definition of ‘mysterious energy’ and call it a day. You could use your free time to let wikipedia know that vacuum was not involved in the invention of the light bulb.
You haven’t answer my question, then if it’s not massage nor healing what is it ? What the so called rei ki practionner is doing with his “patient”, “disciple” ?
“Actually, there’s no way to know that, since the only publicly known practitioners are the ones and charging. And they are usually the ones combining Reiki and massage.”
Well that’s a bit stretched, i’m pretty sure that you can have a good idea of this with statistics and i’m pretty sure that the one which do have the better advertising get the most client anyway. And there is clearly enough of them to heal your money.
“…then if it’s not massage nor healing what is it ?”
As I understand it, the Reiki practitioner acts as a conduit to promote movement of rei ki through someone else. Massage is hands on body work. Healing can be instigated by absolutely anything.
“Well that’s a bit stretched, i’m pretty sure that you can have a good idea of this with statistics”
How do you measure statistics if you don’t know how many practitioners there are out there, who they are, where they are, or how many people they are working with? Anyone you meet could be a Reiki practitioner…there would be no way for you to know, unless you asked them.
“As I understand it, the Reiki practitioner acts as a conduit to promote movement of rei ki through someone else. Massage is hands on body work. Healing can be instigated by absolutely anything.”
And why is that spiritual ? And why someone would need that ? What is the aim of this if it’s not healing ? I still don’t see what they are doing.
“How do you measure statistics if you don’t know how many practitioners there are out there, who they are, where they are, or how many people they are working with? Anyone you meet could be a Reiki practitioner…there would be no way for you to know, unless you asked them.”
What I meant is that someone may have done this work (referencing practioners etc..) or at least partially. And after all, who care ? It don’t change anything to the fact that the most famous rei ki master don’t do it for free (advertising cost money) and it’s not stretched to say that most of rei ki prationner do it for money too because… You have to eat. So the quack is here, even if they are genuine. What I see is that no one one know what rei ki is, nothing can demonstrate his existence, his own defintion is cryptic at best, we don’t know why someone would need that anyway, but people claim to use it for money : This is just basic quack, you create needs (need to move your ki or whatever invisble and impossible to demonstrate) and provide solution at the same time. Solution for something you create yourself and don’t exist. Fabulous ! You don’t even need a real sick patient, just someone who hear you, how the hell could he be aware of the ki state of his body ? Ask rei ki master with money ! Absolutely no risk of side effect or anything, just taking money on people gullibility. That’s purely unethical and it’s why it should be forbiden like all other kind quackery.
“It don’t change anything to the fact that the most famous rei ki master don’t do it for free (advertising cost money) and it’s not stretched to say that most of rei ki prationner do it for money too because… You have to eat.”
Well, by definition ‘most famous’ means that people know about you. It is a stretch to say that most do it for money…because if you don’t know how many practitioners there are, you can’t determine ‘most’.
As far as ‘you have to eat’, that’s why the practitioners I know have other jobs. Actually, the best doctors I know of don’t charge either. They have other jobs too. They consider exchange of money for healing unethical.
“And why is that spiritual ? And why someone would need that ? What is the aim of this if it’s not healing ? I still don’t see what they are doing. ”
Still, because it’s linked to all the post and the answer would be welcome. For the moment no ONE seems to know what they are exactely doing and for what reason ! (even themself !)
“As far as ‘you have to eat’, that’s why the practitioners I know have other jobs. Actually, the best doctors I know of don’t charge either. They have other jobs too. They consider exchange of money for healing unethical.”
Well I doubt that. Or you are not talking about real medicine doctors (retired doctor does not count). You don’t go nine + years of study to do “partial time job” and go for … what other job a doctor can do ? I mean, they don’t need other job they have plenty to do ! And if you are talking about rei ki practionners they are not doctor in anyway, plus you said rei ki is not healing so why would they ask money for that ?
“Well, by definition ‘most famous’ means that people know about you. It is a stretch to say that most do it for money…because if you don’t know how many practitioners there are, you can’t determine ‘most’. ”
I don’t say they first aim is to make money, i said that they ask money for the practice. You just have to look at advertising of this kind of practicing to see that it’s not free.
“Still, because it’s linked to all the post and the answer would be welcome.” I’ve told you my understanding of it. Beyond that…no idea.
“Well I doubt that.” Doubt all you want. The whole subject of medical ethics and exchange of money is way off topic, but I was referring mainly to traditional medicine docs (and I know that there are a bunch of commenters on this site that wouldn’t consider them ‘real’ doctors). Although here in the US there are a bunch of mds providing services for free because of our fucked up medical system. That’s more of a donation of goods and services in addition to their practice, rather than a dogmatic ethical thing. There have been a surprising number who have cut their paid practice way back to have time to care for the underserved, and the ethics conversation has become quite interesting. But…far from the topic of Reiki.
As you still have no idea what you are talking about in the context of this blog post (despite the elapse of seventeen months since it was posted), the following article well illustrates the abject nonsense of Reiki and the sheer depth of delusion exhibited by Reiki Masters:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/09/11/why-reiki-masters-cant-lose/
Pete, since you’ve probably read the article that you link to, and I probably never will…could you sum up the dangers of Reiki? Something actually dangerous. That would not include things like it costs money, or people will opt for Reiki as their sole therapy for a serious condition.
The money thing isn’t really dangerous. People spend money on all kinds of weird things. If you’re going to go the serious conditions route, show some numbers. Prove that Reiki is actually more dangerous than aspirin. Or shaking hands. Or religion.
Show me some real dangers. Something that takes Reiki out of the harmless category. I was kidding when I said the recipient could stumble getting off of the treatment table…but that probably is the biggest danger. (ok, the BIGGEST danger would be stumbling while getting off of the table, and landing next to a rainbow wielding kitten. But what are the odds of that, really?)
You obviously haven’t read this blog post, to which you have so far added 53 comments. I’ll quote the final paragraph to save you the bother of reading the post:
“Some fanatics might use these placebo-treatments as a true alternative to effective therapies. This would mean that the condition at hand remains untreated which, in a worst case scenario, might even lead to the death of patients. More important, in my view, is an entirely different risk: making people believe in mystic ‘energies’ undermines rationality in a much more general sense. If this happens, the harm to society would be incalculable and extends far beyond health care.”
Most people who turn to alt-med for treatment are ill, many of them are desperate therefore they are vulnerable members of society. Filling their minds with the mysticism and abject nonsense of Reiki is very likely to undermine their rationality. Reiki is a process of mystical indoctrination that gives the false hope of improved health and spiritual growth. Clients are encouraged to become students of the master for the purpose of learning how to treat themselves and others. However, the clients/students are never told: Oh, by the way, Reiki is neither plausible, nor effective, nor harmless.
The psychological harm that can and does result from the indoctrination of vulnerable people is a very serious issue.
Apparently, you didn’t read all of the words in the final paragraph. “Some fanatics might use these placebo-treatments as a true alternative to effective therapies.”
Some fanatics might do all kinds of things. What are fanatics ACTUALLY doing?
“This would mean that the condition at hand remains untreated which, in a worst case scenario, might even lead to the death of patients.”
So we seem to be in the realm of might. Might lead to kittens, too. How would we know?
“Oh, by the way, Reiki is neither plausible, nor effective, nor harmless.”
Again, prove the harmless part. So far all you’ve got is your opinions, and Edzards speculations.
I am not in the habit of speculating – I leave this to people like you.
In that case, where’s the evidence of harm from Reiki? “might use” and “might even lead to” seem speculative to me.
My kitten scenario is speculative too. I have no evidence of kittens waiting to chomp on Reiki treatment table stumblers. But it MIGHT happen.
“I am not in the habit of speculating – I leave this to people like you.”
Really?
The response rate was truly dismal, and it is fair to assume that the non-responding students held even more offensive views on vaccination than their responding colleagues. (http://edzardernst.com/2014/05/naturopaths-trained-to-endanger-public-health/#comment-59498)
Positive results from clinical trials of implausible forms of AM are thus either due to chance, bias or must be attributed to more credible causes such as the placebo effect. (http://edzardernst.com/2014/09/the-statistical-agrument-against-alternative-medicine-why-it-cannot-be-considered-evidence-based/)
The modification of cardiovascular risk factors in rats might be of little relevance for humans. (http://edzardernst.com/2014/09/bach-flower-remedies-this-might-be-the-most-bizarre-study-i-have-seen-for-a-long-time/)
And if that is true for herbal remedies, it might also be the case for other types of alternative medicine. In other words, alternative medicine use might be a marker for poor adherence to prescribed medication. I feel that this hypothesis merits further study. (http://edzardernst.com/2014/08/a-hitherto-unknown-risk-of-herbal-medicine-usage/)
I should stress that we do not know how often such events happen; there is no monitoring system, and one might expect that the vast majority of cases do not get published. Most consumers who experience such problems, I would guess, are far to embarrassed to admit that they have been taken in by this sort of quackery. (http://edzardernst.com/2014/08/ear-candles-a-triumph-of-ignorance-over-science/)
So, the HCIS is in excellent company and I have no doubt whatsoever that this new statement is correct – but I also have little doubt that homeopaths will dispute it. (http://edzardernst.com/2014/08/the-evidence-does-not-support-treating-migraine-or-osteoarthritis-with-homeopathy/)
My explanation for the observed effects after Gua Sha is quite simple: imagine you have a headache and accidentally injure yourself – say you fall off your bike and the tarmac scrapes off an area of skin on your thigh. This hurts quite a bit and distracts you from your headache, perhaps even to such an extend that you do not feel it any more. As the wound heals, it gets a bit infected and thus hurts for several days; chances are that your headache will be gone for that period of time. Of course, the Gua Sha- effect would be larger because the factors mentioned above (exotic treatment, expectation etc.) but essentially the accident and the treatment work via similar mechanisms, namely distraction and counter-irritation. (http://edzardernst.com/2013/01/gua-sha-torture-or-treatment/)
Indeed. Such as the wild speculation that ‘reiki energy’ is electromagnetic.
“Such as the wild speculation that ‘reiki energy’ is electromagnetic.”
You’re confusing speculation with definition. Understandable though, since you’re still saying ‘rei energy energy’.
Not only the wild speculation that ‘reiki energy’ is electromagnetic, but also the many Appeals to Quantum Quackery(TM), which have been more than adequately dismissed.
“I’ve told you my understanding of it. Beyond that…no idea.”
OK yeah so it’s clearly total bullshit. It’s beyond any common sense, even rei ki master don’t know what their are doing, it’s fabulous.
“Doubt all you want. The whole subject of medical ethics and exchange of money is way off topic, ”
OH c’mon you were asking question on elementary physics on at least 5 or 6 post and now you say “hmm this thing is off topic”, this is unbelievable.
“but I was referring mainly to traditional medicine docs”
“traditionnal medicine”, if it’s rei ki-like lies I hope they doesn’t get paid for anything. And no, they aren’t doc in anyway, not even close : they don’t know what they are doing.
“Although here in the US there are a bunch of mds providing services for free because of our fucked up medical system”
Well maybe if you know a doctor he can give you consultation for free, but he won’t take ANOTHER job and heal people for free, that’s two totally different things. And there is nothing wrong with getting money for service, if the service is real, so it’s the case for medical doctor and this is not the case for rei ki practionners. At best, if a rei ki master don’t ask money for his service (and don’t slow the eventual medical diagnosis) he is just dellusionnal. If he ask for money he is pure quack selling nothing but beliefs.
“The money thing isn’t really dangerous. People spend money on all kinds of weird things. If you’re going to go the serious conditions route, show some numbers. ”
That is too easy. People can buy weird things (like every new versions of a smartphone), but things that are real. Rei ki is quack because it is not real, this is thievery, rei ki master are just taking money from people in exange of nothing, I call it physcological extortion. By the way those kinds of lies are dangerous for critical thinking, ethics and morale, but I know that those are not very valuable for most of people. However don’t act surprised if some people with a little of these is shocked by those practices and ask to stop.
“OH c’mon you were asking question on elementary physics on at least 5 or 6 post and now you say “hmm this thing is off topic”, this is unbelievable.”
Elementary physics when talking about ki or qi isn’t off topic.
““traditionnal medicine”, if it’s rei ki-like lies”
Reiki isn’t traditional medicine. It didn’t exist before the early 1900’s…and it’s not medicine.
“And there is nothing wrong with getting money for service,”
I totally agree.
“By the way those kinds of lies are dangerous for critical thinking, ethics and morale, but I know that those are not very valuable for most of people. However don’t act surprised if some people with a little of these is shocked by those practices and ask to stop.”
I look forward to the end of chapels in hospitals.
Reiki comes under the umbrella of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), more recently also known as Integrative Medicine. Therefore, Reiki implicitly conveys the following: that it is medically efficacious in some way or another; that its risks have been adequately assessed and its practitioners are fully aware of its documented contraindications; that its practitioners are licensed to practice this form of medicine, are regulated, and are appropriately insured.
In the UK, as in many other regions of the world, there exists legislation that specifically addresses advertising to, and working with, vulnerable members of society. Those deemed vulnerable include: children; all adults who *might* be suffering impaired decision-making skills due to physical illness, mental illness, as a side effect of medication or intoxicants (including alcohol); the elderly; and the infirm.
Vulnerable members of society are neither required nor even expected to adequately differentiate between explicit and implicit health claims. Making this differentiation is a high-order cognitive processing task. High-order cognitive tasks are well known for being quickly impaired just by tiredness, let alone the devastating loss of functioning that usually occurs in severe chronic illness and other debilitating circumstances.
Some CAM practitioners and CAM apologists attempt to dismiss my comments on this blog by claiming that my comments are just unsubstantiated opinions. This pathetic tactic doesn’t work because most of what I write is backed by UK legislation. And, yes, some of this legislation covers those pretending to know things that they don’t know. E.g. statements along the lines: Reiki is the gentle application of universal energy to encourage the body to heal itself and to promote spiritual well-being; Reiki cannot and does not cause any harm. When dealing with vulnerable members of society the motto isn’t “Buyer Beware!” the clear message is: “Practitioners, advertisers, and advocates: Beware of the Law!”
Under UK and other jurisdictions, pretending to know things that you don’t know is frequently equivocated to: Claiming to be a qualified expert who is giving advice to the listener(s). The moral of this is simple: CAM practitioners, clients, and apologists must stop pretending to know things that they don’t know.
Much of the psychological harm caused by the plethora of pre-scientific medical belief systems is documented in the case notes retained by mental healthcare organisations, including the UK NHS and its affiliated providers. This information is used to continuously improve the standard of mental healthcare provided by these organisations.
Disclaimer: I do not provide legal or medical advice. My writings are for the sole purpose of helping to protect vulnerable members of society from the harmful effects of quackery.
Some readers might be interested to learn that Reiki is nothing other than a Japanese-rooted version of New Age shamanism invented by, and promulgated by, unenlightened shamans:
http://www.skepdic.com/shamanism.html
I take it then that you have no proof of Reiki being harmful, since you provide no evidence? I’ll quit asking you, but if you find some…please post it.
And, you should post this “Under UK and other jurisdictions, pretending to know things that you don’t know is frequently equivocated to: Claiming to be a qualified expert who is giving advice to the listener(s). The moral of this is simple: CAM practitioners, clients, and apologists must stop pretending to know things that they don’t know.” over on the gua sha thread. You and a few others should take it to heart.
hi jm, i tell you how reiki is harmful,when i pay a “reiki master” $100 and get nothing in return, because the fact is that reiki does nothing.
$100 eh? Still less harmfull than kittens, if the kitten lives for a few years.
hi pete628, i have this to say to all “reiki masters” JAMES RANDI is offering one million dollars to all “reiki masters” who can prove that reiki therapy works, so i am saying to all you “reiki masters” why are you wasting your precious time on this site when you should be out there chasing the million dollars UNLESS ER maybye reiki therapy is really crap.pete628 i am not calling you a reiki master just supporting your comments.
Thanks joe, I’ve often wondered why proponents of Reiki and other alt-med refuse the JREF and similar challenges yet they spend time on this site demonstrating their wilful ignorance, science denialism, and blatant disregard for the safety of ill and vulnerable people.
I’ve had a funny thought: Perhaps I am a Reiki Master! Neither I nor anyone else can produce evidence to show that I’m not. I can, if necessary, easily demonstrate that I have the same healing power as a Reiki Master 🙂
You know that skeptical people just block the rei ki power ? So a rei ki master can only prove that rei ki exist to a person that is already convinced. Really, really, practical, isn’t it ?
hi pete628 as i said earlier, my brother is a reiki master, he knows its crap but it doesnt stop him from taking $150 per hour for a session, he tells me its the best job he has ever had, i dont know how he sleeps at night. i go to all the reiki sites, pamela miles etc and put it to them to take the JREF offer and they respond by not putting my post on their website, in fact i have already been banned from a pro reiki website just because i asked her to take the JREF challenge, they dont want their clients to know the truth and lose their income,i consider these people as scum for preying on gullible people to further their own interests.
““OH c’mon you were asking question on elementary physics on at least 5 or 6 post and now you say “hmm this thing is off topic”, this is unbelievable.”
Elementary physics when talking about ki or qi isn’t off topic.”
Then talking ethic about questionnable practice on people isn’t off-topic, think for a time.
Now i’m bored, you don’t have any respect of medical ethic and morale, so it’s useless to talk more. You have just no prob with the fact that rei ki “master” (and any other serial bullshiter) are just liar and rob people, then ask “how they can be harmful ?”. How can a thief can harm people ? Do you really need me to draw a picture here ?
Quark – for quite some time now, the accepted practical definition of ki/qi has been electromagnetism. That’s why I say that elementary physics is not off topic. Reiki is a spiritual practice, not a medical one. The medical world has no business, in my opinion, regulating spiritual practice. And vice versa. The religious folk have no business regulating medicine. The picture you’re drawing (medicine getting involved in religious practice) is kind of frightening…
But I do appreciate your take on physics, as you’re the only one I’ve talked to who separates particle and field (“Light propagate in free space because there is an EM field to interact with light, but before the light propagate, is there a field ? Because fields come from particles interacting, they are mathematical tool to define interaction, if there is no interactions they are not useful so it’s how you want. You can say there is a field but with no value or there is no field it’s the same.”).
The other physics folks I’ve talked to are all about field – particle, matter, etc is just concentration of field, and there is continual interaction between areas of differing concetration. It’s nice to hear a different opinion.
You’re not the only person I’ve heard that disagrees with ki/qi being defined as electromagnetism. But, that group is a small minority. And, most that don’t like the electromagnetism definition argue that the definition is too limiting. They agree that electromagnetism is qi – but qi includes more.
Yeah, ki/qi/chi is indeed worthy of comparison to electromagnetic energy. The energy of the highly vocal proponents of this rubbish are comparable to the seriously harmful effects of ionising electromagnetic energy.
“The picture you’re drawing (medicine getting involved in religious practice) is kind of frightening…”
In rei ki it’s more religious practice involved in “medicine”. Precisely, mumbo jumboing people to get money.
“You’re not the only person I’ve heard that disagrees with ki/qi being defined as electromagnetism. But, that group is a small minority. And, most that don’t like the electromagnetism definition argue that the definition is too limiting. They agree that electromagnetism is qi – but qi includes more.”
Yeah usual bullshit : when it don’t fit, it mean the definition is wrong (the physics) and not the qi that is just nonsense. And as it was said 1 billions times : If rei ki is related to EM in any way we should be able to detect it. It’s very easy to understand !
Let us for a moment assume that the mysterious “jm” happens to be right (for once) in his/her seemingly definite (hopefully last) conclusion that the concept called Ki/Qi/Chi or whatever, indeed is a form of electromagnetic (EM) power. Then, by definition this power should be readily measurable.
It so happens that I have formal credentials that say I should have the skills and ability to detect, measure, manipulate and use electromagnetic power. This does not make me a Reiki master 😀
But I am quite familiar with EM power, its nature, its behaviour and what you can and cannot do with it. I even have a ‘secret handshake’ to prove that I belong to a cult of nerds whose hobby it is to measure and manipulate EM power* 😀
Interestingly, EM power is actually readily amenable to hand-waving, no-touch control as demonstrated by the operation of a Theremin musical instrument**.
If indeed we were dealing with EM power it seems exceedingly strange that no one has been able to demonstrate such influence of electromagnetic power on the human body (apart of course from the heat generating, destructive effects of very strong alternating fields or the possibly heart rhythm disrupting effects of a direct current passing through the body ) and that every attempt at blinded trials, from Emily Rosa’s elegant experiment and onwards, has failed to demonstrate the power of energy medicine practitioners of any kind to truthfully sense or manipulate this power.
No, Ockhams Razor retains its edge. Reiki is neither electromagnetic nor any other kind of physical power. If it indeed is to be defined as a power then it may well be defined as the power of delusion and mental suggestion.
Reiki and all the other “energy medicine” mumbo-jumbo is definitely a big load of NOTHING.
Our adhesively persevering “jm” is, as per usual, stuffed to the gills with the proverbial ‘excrementum tauri’, guessing wildly at sciency sounding terms to pretend to master the must of mystery in his/her long-winded, vain attempts at sounding knowledgeable.
When is this absurd discourse coming to an end? We need room for fruitful dialogues on this site.
Is there an OFF button somewhere? I am getting bored and the popcorn is finished.
* 73 de TF-BGL … no use trying to DX or CW me at the moment, I am solely into VHF and video/data links.
** For those not familiar with the Theremin, this technically and aesthetically very interesting musical instrument, there is of course a Wikipedia page and uncountable Youtube examples. Here is a list starting with Leon Theremin himself, wonderfully performing on his invention. Many of these performances are a genuine pleasure. Nothing magical about it at all, even if the operator’s gesticulations sometimes seem more fitting a teacher at Hogwarts or a patient with a choreatic disorder.
hi bjorn, you are correct regarding jm, this person will not accept any explanation that reiki therapy is a sham, your correct that there has been to much discussion on this site talking about something that has been proven a sham many years ago, james randi has a million dollars on the table for anyone that can prove reiki therapy is plausible, the fact that this money has not been claimed is sufficiant proof that discussing this further is a waste of everybodys time.
You are pretty much right Bjorn, enough words have been wasted !
But I don’t know if one day, just one day, I’ll get a fruitful dialogue with any “alternative medicine” proponent.
I feel your pain…
I am glad nobody has caught me on my serious error in the last entry…. I am so ashamed :/
I wrote my Ham-radio callsign WRONG!!!!. It should of course be TF3BGL.
I manage a veterinary cardiology office. This afternoon a woman walked and introduced herself as a certified Reiki Master; she was confident she had services that the practice owner would be interested in. Ignoring her woeful lack of experience working with animals, I asked her to share how this treatment would help our cardiac patients (animals). She was not able to provide me with anything other than “i’ll see what I can find” and commented that “Boy you are a tough sell”. As I explained, some holistic treatments (acupuncture/chiropractic work for arthritis) and herbal/vitamin/minteral treatments have been proven effective. As I explained to her, we have a close relationship with our clients; their own perceptions often color how they feel the pet is doing. Without the correct tools (and know our clients) there are some that it is quite a challenge sorting out how the dog/cat is versus client impression (both positive or negative). And again, I asked her to “Show me the evidence”.
So, in my search I have thus far found little supporting evidence– though there is researcher correspondence in 2010 in the Journal of American College of Cardiology (http // reikiinmedicine org/pdf/jacc pdf). [Link disabled by admin because of suspected malware.]
Has there been any additional recent work? And, atleast in terms of people, is there any difference in the impact of meditation versus Reiki?
@ Scuttlebutst on Monday 03 November 2014 at 18:26
“As I explained, some holistic treatments (acupuncture/chiropractic work for arthritis) and herbal/vitamin/minteral treatments have been proven effective.”
Are you serious………..as in seriously deluded?
I could explain how reiki works, but I won’t because it’s actually not so important, since it will never convince anyone as scientific evidence is still lacking. Let me start at an other point.
Everyone is given intuition. Some people have learned to trust it, listen to it, and therefore been able to develop it. Others are taught and used to think that everything’s real as long as you can see it. Because how could you ever believe or see things that aren’t there? That would be imagination, illusion, naivety and just crazy, while being mentally unstable. So they usually have more or less dismissed their intuition and only use their brains. (Nothing wrong with it).
So me and many others have learned to trust their intuition. It mostly (like 99%) turns out the feelings were right. I use it combined with rational thinking to get or decide the best results possible, and this combination has never failed me.
I know it’s difficult to think intuition is real, and that listening to it is just stupid and crazy, but after some practice, you’ll learn to trust it as it will prove itself to you, if you truly listen. This will develop your intuition as well, making you more sensitive. At first you’ll notice you can sense the emotions of others, I mean you sense it, not physically see it, no matter how bad they want to hide it. Later on you can also sense the atmosphere in rooms where people were fighting. It might feel ver “static “. This will only continue to improve as work with it. Eventually you will also become aware of Reiki, and other energies. Why, because energies possess as what I call frequencies, or vibrations. The higher an energy’s frequency, the purer the energy, and the more difficult it is to sense it. Reiki energy is a very pure high energy that is not easy to sense.
I know you may now think that I should be hospitalized or that I should check myself at the psychiatrist, but I simply feel that Reiki energy does exist. It is analogous to deaf people or people that are truly colorblind (no offence). How would you explain to them what colors or music are? How would you scientifically prove it to them?
I’ll assure you as soon as you start to develop this part of yourself too we’ll have more to talk about.
Take it or leave it as you please.
Oh, please – do explain to us how it works.
Oh, it’s quite easy to explain how Reiki works.
It is exactly the same as when a TraCu® (Transmission Current) automobile mechanic attends to a car engine that is running irregularly from time to time, using to much gas or having steering or braking problems. He kicks the tyres in a special secret sequence that only TraCu® masters can ascertain, strokes the steering wheel and tells the owner that this fixes the problem by adjusting the universal inverse reactive transmission current and synchronising the cognal grameater. He then sells the owner a gallon of lubricant for the door seals, two cans of lock de-icer and ten dozen caromatherapy christmas tree ornaments to hang a fresh one daily on the rearview mirror. He warns the owner that he should return twice a week for more TraCu® tyre kicking sessions because the turbal encabulator is weak and will need regular release of its transmission current flow blockage by the specialised tyre kicking only a certified TraCu® mechanic knows how to do.
Of course the TraCu® mechanic warns the owner that his ministrations will only work if the owner has full faith in TraCu® tyre kicking and the car and owner are open and willing to receive the universal inverse reactive transmission current.
Here you can watch a scientific explanation of TraCu® inverse transmission current adjustment and grameater synchronisation by a level-seven TraCu@ master. Level seven is the highest level of mastery you can reach in Tracu@ mechanics.
Here’s a very apt description of intuition:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intuition
These people do not use their intuition; it’s exactly like telling them the sky isn’t actually blue – they can’t see it. They are bullies who believe what education has taught them and only see what’s in their faces.
If they took a look at quantum physics and consciousness they might get it, but they don’t want to. It’s easier just to call Reiki a placebo. That’s ok, they know it all, and need to learn nothing. It is not a fair and open discussion because their ego’s like to batter anything they don’t understand.
This is from the 6 year old with no physics training, remember me?
jane summers said:
Yes, but thanks for confirming that with your comment.
Jane, How could anyone possibly forget you? Your comments are delightfully naive, while at the same time being laden with the promotion of abject bullshit. I shall never forget your total failure to understand my simple questions about two practical applications of diamonds.
Those who have looked at, then bothered to properly understand, quantum mechanics and consciousness really do “get it”. Those, such as yourself, who don’t begin to understand even the first principles of quantum mechanics and consciousness totally rely on the fact that the vast majority of their audience/clients also don’t begin to understand the first principles of mathematics and science.
You and commentator YGR have made it abundantly clear that neither of you begin to understand the first principles underlying the terms “frequency” and “vibration”. Within your context (not mine), the term “frequency” means the fundamental number of cycles per second of the rotating phase vector being proposed: a vector that may or may not have a constant magnitude in the time domain.
A rotating phase vector (frequency/vibration) that has very high purity has a constant angular velocity and a constant magnitude. Guess what? It carries/transports zero information because it has a bandwidth of zero! As the purity of a signal/frequency/vibration decreases, its bandwidth increases therefore its information content increases — the increased information content might be useful, or it might be just useless random noise.
YGR provided a wonderful example of a self-refuting argument. I was long ago convinced that Reiki energy cannot be detected by science because it is so pure that it contains zero information. IOW, it is a pure placebo — other than the fuckwittery that its practitioners attempt to sell as part of reiki’s multi-level marketing scheme.
What is the tangible end product of Reiki? Pure nothingness for the recipient; a source of income to its vendors. The frequency of Reiki is very far from being undetectable by science and by the general public! I’m sure that some of what I’ve written will resonate with you, and with other readers, however, the phase alignments will vary considerably.
I’m looking forward to your next outpouring of wilful ignorance 🙂
“This is from the 6 year old with no physics training, remember me?”
Yep, and it still shows. One does not take “a look at quantum physics”; the subject is not able to be put into a 12 page softcover book with pictures, therefore you will never understand it or even basic physics.
Can you answer this, please; do you know what an integral is?
“It is analogous to deaf people or people that are truly colorblind (no offence). How would you explain to them what colors or music are? How would you scientifically prove it to them?”
Bad analogy. You might not be able to explain it to them, but you can show them the scientific experiments that prove light exists, its photons has momentum, is measurable, can be refracted, etc., and that sound waves exist, are measurable, can affect other objects, etc., but none of this can be shown for Reiki.
Johnny, Good points. To which I’ll add that none of us can see the infrared spectrum, but infrared images upshifted into the visible spectrum provide us with this ability by proxy. The forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope totally relies on exploiting this basic principle to compensate for the huge red shift of distant galaxies.
Slightly off-topic, but you might enjoy this, the incomparable Tommy Edison: Describing Colors As A Blind Person.
I thoroughly recommend his other videos as well.
And yet, there’s no way to prove to deaf folks that some people can harness that energy to communicate with each other in any meaningful way. They have to take your word for it.
@jm
You imply that those of us who regard reiki as bovine excrement are lacking an organ of sense, analogous to a deaf or a blind person. Yet YGR tells us reiki is all down to highly developed intuition. Jane Summers, the sub-nursery-school physics specialist, tells us it’s quantum consciousness. I don’t lack intuition or consciousness. I just have enough sense and experience to recognize that the intuitive products of my brain are more often wrong than right; that I, like most if not all people, am vulnerable to self-deception. That’s why I prefer to question my intuition, to look for measurable, reproducible evidence of a phenomenon before I rush off to embrace it and explain it with pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.
I don’t mean to imply that at all, Frank.
But that doesn’t matter. You can prove that it exists, whether it’s usable to the deaf person or not. You cannot prove reiki is anything other than a made up thing. You cannot measure its energy in any way.
You certainly can prove that there are things we can’t perceive that have the potential to affect us – and they are measurable. Somewhere on this thread, Quark has a really nice explanation.
What reiki practitioners claim is that they can harness this potential – which is a different issue. As far as I know, the first time someone called bullshit on that idea was in the Xunzi, about 2300 years ago:
“When the performance of the great rain dance is followed by rain, what does this mean? I say it means nothing”.
Jm, with all due respect to you and your family, I implore you to read, and to fully digest The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark — a 1995 book by astrophysicist Carl Sagan. If you have read it, then I implore you to reread it and to better digest its deeply profound content.
Pete,
Jobnny is claiming that our atmosphere is a vacuum. I don’t think Carl Sagan would agree with him. 🙂
I’m confused? When did I claim our atmosphere is a vacuum? Again, you can measure every element of our atmosphere – Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, c02, ozone….all of it. Let me know when you can measure Reiki.
“Jobnny is claiming that our atmosphere is a vacuum. I don’t think Carl Sagan would agree with him. :)”
Where? Sorry, it is jm, someone for whom reality does appear. How do you come up with this stuff? I couldn’t make this nonsense up even when I was stoned on hash years ago at uni.
Johnny – never mind. I was long shot hoping that you were making a joke based on the classical definition(s) of lingqi (reiki) found in old daoist & confucian writings – long long before communist China mucked things up a bit. In the context of the deaf/proving sound exists…your comment would have been quite clever (or quick, or sharp).
Seems that the difference between Reiki (the practice) and what it is theoretically channelling (reiki) will remain in an atmosphere of mystery.
Nowhere did Johnny claim that our atmosphere is a vacuum. Furthermore, there are two primary definitions of the term “vacuum”: A region or volume of space that contains very few or zero physical particles per cubic metre; A region that contains no particles, no inherent energy, and no possible means of interacting with the reality of our universe [my poetic licence!]. My latter definition is a theoretical construct, which (as far as we currently know) likely exists only outside of the confines of our space-time universe.
When we speak of vibrations, their frequency, and their energy, what are we really talking about? It depends on whether we are talking about wave energy that is propagated via a physical medium — e.g. air and water propagating sound and other waves; the ground propagating seismic waves from earthquakes — or are we talking about self-propagating waves that do not rely on a physical medium for their transportation, such as electromagnetic waves. The latter do indeed self-propagate through my first definition of a vacuum. However, it is physically impossible to create near-field self-propagating electromagnetic waves: in the near-field region to the source of energy, the separate electric and magnetic components of the energy have not yet combined into a self-propagating electromagnetic wave, i.e, photons with their associated energies.
In the near-field region, both the electric and the magnetic components are easily measurable right down to microscopic scales. In the far-field region of self-propagating photons, we now have detectors that are sensitive enough to count individual photons: indivisible units of energy that instigated the hypothesis of quantum mechanics a few hundred years ago, which gained enough evidence during the early 20th Century to promote the hypothesis to a well established scientific theory.
Mikao Usui — the Japanese Buddhist who was the founder of a form of spiritual practice known as Reiki, which he developed in 1922 — was blissfully unaware of the existing science, and the scientific method. That blissful and perhaps quaint unawareness was excusable in 1922; it most certainly isn’t excusable in the year 2016!
Pete,
reiki → there’s stuff going on in the atmosphere, the air around us
Reiki → practice invented by Mikao Usui, who claimed to be able to harness reiki
If you say you can’t prove Reiki → you’re a rational, sensible person.
If you say you can’t prove reiki → you’re insane. There’s all kinds of stuff going on in the air around us.
Around 300 BCE Xunzi was calling bullshit on people that claimed they could harness rei (stuff going on in the atmospher) to make it rain. If he said there was nothing there to harness…someone would have called bullshit on him.
In Johnny’s example, you can’t describe music to a deaf person, but you can prove the mechanics of sound. Then he says that you can’t prove the mechanics of reiki – that there’s stuff going on in the air around us. There are only a few options here:
1. Johnny’s bat shit crazy, and thinks the sky is a vacuum. I doubt he thinks that.
2. Johnny thinks that Reiki practitioners invented their own special energy that they are using. That’s also pretty crazy. Reiki doesn’t claim that – they claim to use what inherently exists.
3. Johnny was making a really clever joke about rei and the poetically described effects that atmospheric conditions have on our being. With a hint of Joseph Beuys.
I was hoping for 3…but I’m now betting it was 2.
“someone for whom reality does appear.”
hmmmm…is that part of an unfinished haiku or something?
Frank, you glue fume poet, you!
@Pete : You are wasting your time i fear. I (and other) have banged my head against the wall to try to explain to JM how EM fields works, to no sucess.
“someone for whom reality does appear.”
Yeah, sorry jm, I was taking the piss out of an imbecile you may know.
“hmmmm…is that part of an unfinished haiku or something?”
Que?
“Frank, you glue fume poet, you!”
Hash isn’t glue. It surprises me you don’t know that given you appear stoned all of the time.
“That’s also pretty crazy. Reiki doesn’t claim that – they claim to use what inherently exists.”
This provides fairly good evidence for it.
Jm, I keep forgetting that distinction between Reiki[1] and reiki[2]. My dictionary entry for the word “reiki” states: a healing technique based on the principle that the therapist can channel energy into the patient by means of touch, to activate the natural healing processes of the patient’s body and restore physical and emotional well-being.
ORIGIN Japanese, literally ‘universal life energy’.
[1. the practice.]
[2. the ‘universal life energy’ channelled by the practitioner.]
I was brought up to believe that we are given a soul at the moment of conception, which departs our body when we die. In other words, our soul is our ‘life force’ or ‘life energy’. I started wondering about this as I learnt science at school. What about other animals, and plants? They live and die therefore they seem to need a soul in order to be alive. If plants have a soul then perhaps we shouldn’t eat them; what can we eat that doesn’t result in killing things that are living? This might sound bizarre to some readers, but this type of belief system can be extremely distressing for children to deal with — especially for those who are not allowed to ask serious questions about the belief system.
It took me a very long time, and a great deal of hard work, to undo that indoctrination. Replacing “soul” with “universal life energy” (or anything similar) would be replacing one belief system that has zero evidence with another that has zero evidence. The burden of proof is fully owned by those making the claim, not by those who are questioning or dismissing the claim.
As much as I’d like to, I cannot accept the notion that reiki means something to do with the atmosphere because Earth’s atmosphere is the very antithesis of “universal life energy”. For most of the history of our planet, its oxygen content was just a low-level (often toxic-to-life) waste product. Plants require CO2, oxygen is the last thing they need, which is why they expel it. The nitrogen cycle is useful to plants, but nitrogen, CO2, and argon in the atmosphere are all useless to humans directly.
As you know, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I just wish everyone would stop using pre-scientific notions and terminology in the 21st Century. This stuff is long overdue for being relegated to the history books. Reiki = a hand waving exercise that sometimes induces a placebo reaction; reiki = pre-scientific clutching at straws, just another version of souls, Heaven, and Hell that replaces the named deity with the word universe.
Pete,
Replace “universal life energy” with “movement; change”. A lot of Chinese and Japanese terms are really hard to apply a short translation to. The phrase “universal life energy” has connotations here in the west (like you’re describing) that aren’t part of the idea.
If you look in a Chinese or Japanese dictionary, it probably goes something like this (Romanized Japanese is on the left, followed by Romanized Chinese):
rei / ling – soul, spirit
ki / qi – breath
The “soul, spirit” definition is also very different than the western meaning. It’s not a religious thing. Think: “The beauty of the sunset is good for my soul.” or “The misty mountain air is good for my spirit.” Contentment, vitality, inspiring, rejuvenating type of thing – not the mystical part of you that will one day travel to Valhalla or whatever.
If you look in an older Chinese/English dictionary, not only would the definition be different – the character would be different as well. Communist China simplified the language, for various reasons. But one thing they did was strip out the nuanced meaning of the word. “Soul, spirit” would be the stripped down version.
This is a very gross oversimplification (and I know of at least one person that would kick my ass for brutalizing a beautiful concept…but I’m going to anyway): Ling used to mean, among other things, “mysterious atmosphere”. The idea is that the atmosphere around us is constantly changing, and has the ability to affect us. A cloudy, dank day has a very different affect on us than a bright sunny spring day. It has a different affect on your vim, vigor, vitality (spirit/soul). Ling (the atmosphere) has the potential to change us.
The atmospheric conditions of a sunset (rei/ling) could inspire you to write a beautiful piece of music, fall in love, settle into your true nature and change you destiny. It could be good for your health, by simply relaxing and enjoying the sunset. How do you measure that? Who knows.
But, you could grab a handy dandy Minolta IIIF color meter and measure the color temperature of those same sunset conditions. You’re measuring rei/ling. You could pull out a thermometer and take the air temp at the time of those particular conditions. You’re measuring rei/ling. You could measure the wind speed, humidity, etc etc. You’re measuring the atmospheric conditions, the rei/ling. You can prove atmosperic conditions…you can’t prove the effects on people.
All of these things (color temp, air temp, wind speed, humidity) move and change (ki/qi). It doesn’t matter if it’s useful to humans directly…it would still be reiki/lingqi.
If you told me you could channel the conditions of the beautiful sunset, through you, into me…you’d be claiming to practice Reiki[1]. This is where I thought Johnny was going with the music/deaf person analogy.
That would be about as useless as explaining art to a dead hare.
Don’t forget the honey. It doesn’t work without the honey.
“A lot of Chinese and Japanese terms are really hard to apply a short translation to.”
Easy to translate for those of us who have spend many thousands of hours personally interacting with their culture, traditions, and their people!
No offence intended.
“It doesn’t work without the honey.”
You have to double down on the felt and animal fat.
Pete,
No offence taken, by me anyway. But, could you elaborate? I’ve never talked to anyone that translated rei / ling as ‘soul’ in a western religious sense (they used much different terms), for instance. Do you have a different experience?
Then let’s get into the ‘universal life force’ thing…
Jm, Apologies for my delay in writing a properly-considered reply to your very detailed and interesting comment. As we’ve previously agreed, it’s so difficult to conduct meaningful discussions via a comment thread so I’ve been trying to think of how best to reply.
Firstly, I think I’ve grasped the core essence of your explanation, even though I somewhat disagree on a few points. The English language is devoid of words and terms that adequately map to the words and terms that you’ve done a really good job of explaining. I’m glad you didn’t take offence at my previous comment because my first-hand experience of being immersed in those cultures and traditions are invaluable lessons that I shall always treasure, and never forget or attempt to dismiss.
Secondly, there are many things that I’d be more than happy to share with you in person, but not share with the general public. I don’t have any dark secrets to hide, but I still hold the belief that personal conversations can be highly valuable and meaningful. We can have an in-depth conversation with a friend that neither party would be comfortable having in the presence of an audience.
Keeping the above in mind as I attempt to reply… I haven’t yet met anyone in the UK who has ever *directly* [as in openly and honestly] attempted to translate rei/ling as ‘soul’ in a western religious sense. However, I have met countless people who do it indirectly via a combination of misdirection [as in trickery]; the bastardization [as in the wilful obscurantism] of language, terminology, traditions, and cultures; and as an appeal to their particular branch of New Age ‘religion’ that includes elements of one or more of: alt-med, pop-psychology, pop-neuroscience, the promotion of (yet another in the series of) their self-help books.
Please don’t ask me to provide evidence because I refuse to pollute Edzard’s blog posts with dozens of names of both modern quacks and the discredited charlatans.
The title of the article on which we are commenting is “Reiki: neither plausible, nor effective, nor harmless”. It starts:
therefore our discussion about the ancient meanings reiki et al. have nothing whatsoever to do with the Western practise and marketing of Reiki. Our discussion is totally off-topic despite it being very interesting to the two of us (and I hope to a few other readers).
My gripe is not with you, jm, it is with those who insist on using the terms “energy”, “vibration”, and “frequency” in a pathetic attempt to bastardize both modern science and the ancient concepts that you’ve described in order to justify the multi-level marketing scheme known as Reiki, which claims to be a panacea not just for health problems, but also for all of life’s problems. Reiki trounces homeopathy as a ruse because it is much quicker and cheaper to become accredited, and despite two centuries of trying, homeopaths have never become smart enough to develop their quackery into a multi-level marketing scheme.
The only thing in your comment that I really disagree with is about the human perception of (and the moods induced by) colours because it is something that I’ve been studying, and experimenting with via art, for many years. Rather than me trying to explain it via these comments, I highly recommend reading the delightfully fascinating book by Harvard Medical School neurobiologist Margaret Livingstone “Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing”. I disagree with you regarding only whether or not this aspect of human experience is quantifiable: I think it is scientifically quantifiable because I’ve managed to develop repeatable methods that have worked extremely well in practice.
Pete
Thanks for the book recommendation, and the link from the other thread. And, can’t wait to hear more about your own experimentation – exciting!
In the meantime, here are a couple of links for you. Not related to rei/ling directly, but hopefully provide a broader perspective for studies & commentary on Asian medicine. The links are two parts of an interview with Paul Unshuld – a pretty quick read.
part 1: http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2004/jul/07bauerunschuld.html
part 2: http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=28498
I do Reiki and I am not a scientist. Never in a million years would I call it medicine or claim that it is any kind of treatment. Gentle hands can soothe and calm, like a mother soothing a child. This helps people relax and breath more slowly, so sometimes they will sleep during a session. It also relaxes tense ligaments, which can help with some pain. Some animals also like it and will doze during a session and small animals that have gut problems often start to eat after Reiki. I think this is also due to relaxation: it’s not a cure or a substitute for veterinary or medical care, it can sometimes just help a bit. Other animals hate hands being placed on them if the hands are still, which they are during Reiki. I think that the training gives people confidence to touch in a way that is calm and that gives confidence. If someone wants Reiki I don’t take money for it but I do ask for something such as a mug of tea or some flowers. Whatever you think when you read this, you are probably right.
Norma
Why do you say you do reiki?
Because I do Reiki
Well, your description of reiki seems to not coincide with many definitions I’ve read about. They all talk about indeterminate ‘energy’ or some such nonsense, flowing from the practitioner to the customer without touching, but your description of what you do was something like therapeutic touch and light massage without the woo. Do you not ascribe to the fanciful notions of reiki?
I do not do massage. If you read my reasonably short post you will see that I describe my hands as being “still”. That is not massage. I gave my explanation for what I think happens.
Alan, please, it is magic.
Norma
You said:
I took this to mean you were touching the customer and that relaxing ‘tense ligaments’ was because of touch/massage. However, if you aren’t, then do you believe in the tenets of reiki, which I understand are based on a belief in a ‘life force energy’ flowing through you and across the gap into the customer?
According to the International Center for Reiki Training “An amazingly simple technique to learn, the ability to use Reiki is not taught in the usual sense, but is transferred to the student during a Reiki class. This ability is passed on during an “attunement” given by a Reiki master and allows the student to tap into an unlimited supply of “life force energy” to improve one’s health and enhance the quality of life.”
Norma, which Reiki master provided your attunement?
You ask me if I ascribe to fanciful notions.
I have explained that I do not offer treatment or medicine. Though I make no claims about results, I have also explained in brief why I think some people benefit.
Happy Christmas
@Norma
You seem to be avoiding answering the question I asked. Reiki practitioners frequently claim it’s based on ‘life force energy’; this ‘life force energy’ is a fanciful notion because no good evidence has ever been presented that it is in any way real and measurable; you claim to be a reiki practitioner. Do you ascribe to what appears to be the generally accepted notions of reiki?
Norma,
Did you read the prof’s post in entirety?
If so, what makes you different or special?
I’m special?
Norma,
You may be special but not in the sense you imagine.
Have you ever wondered how and why all of this technology, available at your fingertips, became available? Hint: it wasn’t someone who made stuff up, as you and your “colleagues” are wont to do.
Norma,
You may be special but not in the sense you imagine.
Pardon?
Read my reply. It was you who suggested that I was special or different and you asked about it. I have no idea why you suggested that I am. Nor in what way you think I am special or what it is that I am different from.
I make and have made no such assertion. What I wrote was “I’m special?” In response to your assertion. You note the question mark??
I will leave the last word to you as I think you’d like that. Happy Christmas
Also..Thanks for the hint!
I’m going to admit that I did not read all of the previous posts (so this may end up being redundant). I found the statement, “They like to be called ‘masters’ ” interesting. Not all Reiki practitioners are masters; a Master is someone who has received Level III instruction. It is the only level in which teaching others is accepted. Not all practitioners are working as practitioners, not all of them charge for their services. I’ve read and heard a lot of statements about Reiki (often from people who practice other alternative methods) that baffle me. Yes, Reiki is considered energy work and a practitioner is considered a conduit for healing energy. Reiki training often includes discussion of the chakra system, which is also a component of many yoga practices.
As a Reiki practitioner (who does not have a formal practice), I can only relate a few experiences: a day after my first attunement class, my long-term, lower-back pain disappeared. It has never returned to the degree or frequency as it had previously. I have worked on mostly friends and family members; many tell me they definitely feel something, whether I’m touching them or not (a practitioner can hold the hands above a person, or lay them on the person). One of my friends, who has poly-cystic kidney disease, noted a reduction in her high blood pressure a few days after a session. Her blood pressure hadn’t increased, even after several months and I hadn’t done any further sessions with her.
Many people feel that Reiki has a spiritual component and some people have heard of practitioners having odd beliefs, etc. What a practitioner believes–or what the person on the table believes, for that matter–is a private affair, as far as I’m concerned. I think it would unprofessional to try to promote my beliefs, as much as it would be irresponsible to claim Reiki as a cure-all or as a substitute for regular medical care. That is not how I’ve been taught to practice or promote the practice of Reiki.
I’m certain people could poke holes in my statements. But, as I feel that I and others I’ve known, have personally benefited, I don’t intend to give up the practice.
Thanks for the candour, Rose. Now please ask yourself why reviews of products in places like the Amazon website typically range from 5-star to 1-star. The 5-star reviews say the product works perfectly; the 1-stars often advise readers not to buy the product. How can you tell what the truth is, concerning the product?
People’s subjective experiences, sad to say, are just not a reliable guide to anything. They are conditioned by culture, upbringing and environment. They come from the brain, whose function can be modified by substances such as alcohol or hallucinogenic drugs, or by a range of diseases. We all differ in our thoughts and experiences and we all fool ourselves a lot of the time, and that means we need some sort of tool to help distinguish what’s real from what’s false. Anecdotes simply don’t cut it as evidence. The best tool we have available so far is the scientific method.
The best example of the problem from your comment is “One of my friends, who has poly-cystic kidney disease, noted a reduction in her high blood pressure a few days after a session. Her blood pressure hadn’t increased, even after several months and I hadn’t done any further sessions with her.” Why do you assume your reiki session lowered her blood pressure?! She noted the reduction “a few days after”. What did she do in those few days? She might have visited a chiropractor or a homeopath or an acupuncturist, all of whom could reasonably claim it was their treatment that lowered her blood pressure. Or perhaps the blood pressure just lowered itself: it isn’t a constant measurement, you know! How often was her blood pressure checked? Every day at the same time? Less frequently?
Do you begin to see the problem? Other reactions your post may attract might be more scathing than this one, but they’ll say much the same thing. “I feel that I and others I’ve known, have personally benefited”. That kind of statement would apply similarly to believers in astrology, palmistry and all forms of religion. But it doesn’t even get on the first rung of the ladder of evidence.
Are you ‘skeptics’ (true skeptics keep an open mind) are so funny. Bare in mind that everything I’m about to say applies equally if there is anything to reiki or not.
There are no real English terms that accurately describe the true nature of what’s involved so we’re forced to use terms like energy. Then people jump on the this as evidence that the process is against scientific principles because that’s not how energy works.
You site biased studies that are specifically designed to show a null result as evidence of the invalidity of what you’re trying to disprove. I could link to dozens of other (possibly also biased) studies that clearly seem to show that reiki has a real object and measurable effect.
You continually use ad hominem and straw man arguments in a hollow attempt to refute something that you clearly have very little understanding of.
“Trials like this one abound in the parallel world of “energy” medicine. In my view, such investigations do untold damage: they convince uncritical thinkers that “energy” healing is a rational and effective approach – so much so that even the military is beginning to use it.”
This is hilarious! You don’t think scientific studies should even be carried out to test the validity of claim as widespread and successful as reiki? This shows that you have absolutely no interest in science are only interested in trying o convince people that your baseless opinions are in some way valid. I think the real problem you have with such research is that you’re worried that it will prove something that contradicts you world view.
Don’t listen to these crackpots pretending to be skeptics, they’re a symptom of the biggest problem holding back true science. Remember it wasn’t too long ago that scientists who believed in meditation were ridiculed and even had their careers ended for daring to believe in something that others found offensive because they didn’t like the implications it lead to.
If you want to attack genuine BS pretending to be science then there’s plenty of examples in mainstream science, and these are for more dangerous because they seem more credible not because of any evidence but because of the presentation and their source. You could start with the big bang, a ridiculous hypothesis that’s been disproved on multiple occasions and is now held together by completely made up and unprovable processes (inflation, dark matter dark energy) that supposedly make up over 90% of the observable universe. Oh but reiki is far fetched? LOL!
@A-wal
Comedy gold!
Ok , Here we go I do not believe in Reiki. That is my “belief” I don’t care about “your physics” your straw man
I choose and decide not to believe in Reiki. So are millions.
I have a disgust for people who have a disgust for people who have a disgust on Reiki
I am also from India, Land of the Snake Charmers and 33 million gods, So these things are not new. Poor western people. Inspite of so much abundance of education and resources and role models. At least we , are poor peasants..eh?
A little learning is a dangerous thing while no learning is very dangerous thing.So it is better to accept that not be a hypocrite as u opposers of Reiki don’t know anything about it?
and one more thing Reiki is really intelligent scalar energy(yeah! scalar firstly get it “what is scalar energy then talk about reiki and science”) and also tons of times stronger than placebo .u don’t need to believe in it to work for you.
just read these lines and I hope if u have some understanding of physics and Vedas then these words will surely strike your brain with some new sparks about the miraculous healing power of reiki…….
Reiki originated in India in the Vedic period 9000 years ago.
The 12 strand Maharshis used hand Mudras and Sanskrit sound mantras, and not written symbols.
These Vedic seers were literally supermen, with king sized pineal glands. Sanskrit is a divine language from the DNA. When you utter an alphabet, you can see it in your mind’s eye, as a form of cymatics.
Buddha who was born 3900 years ago, continued this system with Sanskrit/ Tibetian symbols. Buddha was determined to bring Vedic knowledge to the common man in his own local language. Today the modern Japanese Reiki symbols have been derived from this.
Jesus Christ ( Damisa ) came to Kerala , India by ship to learn this unique system of healing, and crystal dowsing — before he burst upon the scene at Jerusalem.
.
Reiki was re-invented by Dr. Mikao Usui a Japanese man in 1890. He nearly died of Cholera , and he had a vision of Buddha. When he told of this the day in the local temple, the Jap priest beat him up and drove him away , and told him never ever to come back.
Dr Usui, did NOT use any Reiki symbols till he trained his last 3 students.
In 1921 Mikao Usui moved to Tokyo and formed the Reki society. By the age of 62 when he died he had a large following.
The token payment which Usui wanted for Reiki services ( he found free services had no value in a Jap leper colony ) has now been subverted and Western Reiki masters charge fantastic amounts to do attunements and healings, much against the spirit of this divine channelling force.
For a person with 2 strand DNA out of which 96% is junk, symbols increases the energy flow. It works on the root cause of the disease within the sub-conscious mind. The human body is nothing but energy. Reiki balances the left and right brain lobes.
Reiki can be used to charge an object (including food) with scalar energy. Reiki energy can be beamed across the planet through worm holes , with NIL loss of strength faster than light.
Nikola Tesla was introduced to this scalar energy by Swami Vivekananda, a great Indian mystic. Reiki connects with Akashic records and can go to the past or future.
Reiki energy field cannot be measured as they are scalar. However the field can be photographed with a Kirlean camera. For skeptics– holding a small double terminated quartz crystal doubles the photographic portion of the aura.
The aura containes the 7 chakras. The chakras are connected to each other through etheric channels. Holes in the aura occurs due to illness , fear and stress.
The human body generates scalar waves from the mobius coils ( figure of eight ) of the DNA and the mobius coils of the circulatory system. When the left and right sides of the brain lobes and the circulatory system in front of the lungs, are in balance the human body generates scalar waves.
When two energy fields exactly cancel out each other the 5th dimension is accessed which is all pervasive and has the power to heal.
Scalar waves are information carrying waves, and are linked to human consciousness.They are the interface between the mental and physical world. The existence of Scalar waves and the Akashic field ( Zero point field or Aether ) have been known to the Vedic Maharishis since the past 11000 years.
Every object has its own fundamental frequency, at which it vibrates, also called the resonant frequency. The resonant frequency of the earth is 7.83 hz… Everything also vibrates to the harmonics of the fundamental frequency.
When a frequency outside the object matched the fundamental frequency, RESONANCE occurs causing amplification of the vibrations. Resonance is established by lowering or one side frequency or raising of the other side frequency until union is established allowing reciprocal exchange. . We tune our radio of TV this way.
A Reiki healer projects white light towards the patient, with disharmonious energy field, with INTENT, to entrain the weaker field, causing resonance to happen. It is about transfer of quantum energy.
Scalar energy is capable of restructuring water molecules into smaller clusters, thus promoting biochemical functions of water regulated activities within the body–revitalising the metabolic functions. Scalar fields permeate the body tissues and enhance ion transport at cellular level..
Akasha is the womb of creation, bringing forth every physical aspect that can be perceived with the 5 human senses. The Akashic chronicles record everything that has ever happened or will happen in this cosmos.It contains the story of every soul that has lived on our planet.
The Indian Vedic seer has exploded into a space of consciousness in which inner awareness is spontaneous. Some use Mantras , some use Mudras.
In Reiki when you apply your hands to any part of the body, the energy moves to where it is need. The cells begin to communicate, and healing takes place with generation of heat, due to eddy currents. Reiki knows just where to go to seek balance , just like how the universal water flows down and finds its level.
Scalar waves are ELF longitudinal waves and can penetrate anything. Submarines communicate in this frequency. ELF fields can change the characteristics of neurotransmitters and hormones. The intelligence of all the cells in the human body, constitute the sum total of intelligence.
Our cosmos is self aware. Every atom, planet and star is self aware with individuality. Consciousness is NOT restricted to organic life forms alone.
Come 21st Dec 2012, mankind will break out of the shackles of Freemasons Isaac Newton who stole from Vedas without understanding it, divorcing quantum physics and classical physics.
Even in this DNA age, the world controlled by Rothschild still do NOT allow Darwin to be expunged from the science text books of school.
Reiki healing draws on the infinite energy source via Schumann Resonance. When left and right brain lobes are in balance Alpha waves are generated, which resonate in sympathy with Schumann frequency of 7.83 Hz..
Source:http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/08/reiki-capt-ajit-vadakayil.html?m=1
“u opposers of Reiki don’t know anything about it” Courtier’s reply.
“These Vedic seers were literally supermen, with king sized pineal glands.” Evidence?
“Sanskrit is a divine language from the DNA. When you utter an alphabet, you can see it in your mind’s eye, as a form of cymatics.” Paranormal horse manure.
“Jesus Christ ( Damisa ) came to Kerala , India by ship to learn this unique system of healing, and crystal dowsing — before he burst upon the scene at Jerusalem.” Evidence? (Also crystal dowsing is more paranormal horse manure.)
“For a person with 2 strand DNA out of which 96% is junk, symbols increases the energy flow. It works on the root cause of the disease within the sub-conscious mind.” Incomprehensible bollocks.
“The human body is nothing but energy.” Anyone who can make this statement is not a member of this planet.
“Reiki energy can be beamed across the planet through worm holes , with NIL loss of strength faster than light.” Meaningless, sciencey-sounding word spaghetti.
I can’t go on… this comment is so full of arrant nonsense, new-agey (un)logic, sciencey-sounding but meaningless — often plain stupid — claims it’s a waste of time even to bother to respond. I’m not pleased with myself for having gone this far.
Gaurav, you apparently read the most arrant nonsense available. You misunderstand wildly when you do read about something real, you stir everything you’ve read (and only vaguely understood) in a huge cauldron of blind ignorance, stir the contents and spout probably the most hilarious guff I’ve ever seen. Your main problem lies in your opening tilt about “a little learning…” Check my link to the courtier’s reply: before we go into any kind of detail we first need robust evidence that Reiki has real-world effects anywhere outside its believers’ addled minds.
Wow….just…wow. I don’t recall breaking out of any shackles 5 years ago, nor does the rest of mankind, last I checked. I can’t believe the amount of disinformation packed into a single post. I’ll let others pick it apart, but thanks for the entertainment.
Gaurav wrote: “Reiki energy field cannot be measured as they are scalar.”
Scalar fields most certainly can be measured. Examples of measurable scalar fields include: an electrostatic field; the temperature distribution of space; the pressure distribution in a fluid; the humidity distribution in air.
By the way, the force that generates a scalar field is a vector force, not a scalar force.
“The resonant frequency of the earth is 7.83 hz…”
Untrue. 7.83 Hz is the global electromagnetic fundamental resonant frequency of the cavity between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere (Schumann resonances). It is not the resonant frequency of the Earth.
“Everything also vibrates to the harmonics of the fundamental frequency.”
Untrue. The Schumann resonances you mentioned are an excellent example:
7.83 Hz fundamental; 14.3, 20.8, 27.3, 33.8 Hz, etc. — these are not harmonics, their spacing is approximately 6.5 Hz. Harmonics, by definition, have a spacing equal to the fundamental frequency.
Musical percussion instruments are another example of multiple resonances that are not harmonics of the fundamental frequency. Also, the various modes of vibration of a water molecule are not harmonically related.
“Scalar waves are information carrying waves”
Then they will produce dynamic vector fields, not scalar fields! Information is dynamic, not static. E.g., an unmodulated radio frequency carrier wave conveys zero information, even though it is transferring electromagnetic energy from the transmitter to the receiver(s).
By definition, a scalar quantity conveys only the magnitude of the quantity. A vector quantity conveys both the magnitude and the direction of the quantity. Therefore, “information carrying waves” are carrying information from the sender to the recipient(s): they are vector quantities.
“Scalar waves are ELF longitudinal waves and can penetrate anything. Submarines communicate in this frequency.”
Untrue. Obviously, the waves cannot be both “scalar” and “longitudinal”. Longitudinal means that the waves are axial to their direction of propagation. Therefore, they are vector waves, not scalar waves.
Sound waves are longitudinal waves. ELF radio waves are not longitudinal waves because the height of the cavity between the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere is much less than one wavelength. The only propagation mode that encounters low attenuation is vertically polarized, transverse electromagnetic mode, in which the attenuation is only 1 to 2 dB per 1,000 km.
Some submarines use ELF, but the bandwidth is far too narrow for any purpose other than receiving a calling signal. When the signal has been received, they tend to use VLF for communications, which is limited to a depth of circa 20 metres.
“When left and right brain lobes are in balance Alpha waves are generated, which resonate in sympathy with Schumann frequency of 7.83 Hz.”
Untrue. Alpha waves are neural oscillations in the range from 7.5 to 12.5 Hz. They do not “resonate in sympathy with Schumann frequency”. If the frequency happens to be at 7.83 Hz then it is simply a coincidence; it does not lead to a conclusion of cause and effect.
NB: I haven’t addressed any of your statements specifically about Reiki because it’s blindingly obvious that it is you who does not understand the scientific terms that you decided to include in your comment.
That’s a fantastic gobbledegook generator you’ve used there, Guarav. One of the best I’ve seen.
@Guarav
I have just been reminded of something Einstein said in a different context, but apt here:
I would argue with his last point.
Well there is no worst blind then one who refuses to see I met a man years ago who had cancer terminal He had a month left He was Reiki master and cured himself went on to live over 45 years passed away at 98 When he cured himself the team who was treating him asked how he did it and if he would talk to other patients This was at a cancer treatment hospital The mind can do wonderful things It is not because you cannot see something that it does not exist In WW II they ran out of morphine so they gave placebo to patients it worked at over 80%
Sheesh, use punctuation, please. It makes sentences easier to read.
Exactly. It’s all in your mind. Imaginary. Not a thing. I hear voodoo works too, if you believe in it enough.
Sheesh learn to read no inderstand comments without the punctuation grammar and spelling this is the age of commenting and trolling and don’t expect every one to be educated in the same way also this is not English literature or poetry I am sure you don’t know ASDFGH typing yet type that is all it is needed “tow fingers” to type if you don’t like it I can show you one
I understood it, hence my reply that Reiki is all in her mind, since she brought up the placebo effect. As for the punctuation, it was just a suggestion. You can both feel free to let your shitty grammar and sentence structure undermine any salient point you were trying to make.
After your punctuation remarks I did not read your comments any further. You judge yourself on what is your objective and what you need to say and what you want the results. If all that you want is “venting ground” then prepare to eat what comes. I am sure the internet will mature out of this stone ages of commenting and people will treat others just as they would treat if they have a conversation face to face
I would tell you the same thing face to face. If you are not a native english speaker, I commend you on your abilities. If you are, I maintain you should probably be better at it. But that’s neither here nor there — As I said, it was a suggestion, and a polite one at that. Take it or leave it. It doesn’t really add anything to the Reiki conversation. Sorry I mentioned it and wasted everyone’s time. I’m done.
Johnny V,
Please never be sorry that you said: “Sheesh, use punctuation, please. It makes sentences easier to read.”
I implore you to continue to highlight the importance of punctuation and structure. Those of us who suffer reading difficulties are a minority, but we are certainly not an easily-dismissible, insignificant, tiny minority amongst the people who have learnt to read!
We sincerely thank the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for producing guidelines and mandates which, when followed, enable us to read, even to interact with, the World Wide Web.
Many commentators falsely believe that commentators are not required to abide by W3C guidelines and mandates. This false belief is so widespread that it has forced a plethora of websites to disallow reader comments on their articles.
Tidy thoughts usually correlate with tidy comments. That means that, usually, untidy comments reveal an untidy line of reasoning. As for the original comment, it is more untidy in its meaning than its grammatical and syntactic structure… Reiki is just another nothingness. And there is nothing wonderful in the placebo effect. It’s just that. It’s only wonderful if you are fond of or prone to believing magical interpretations.
James , Johnny Pete and every one. Two things
1) I am a MT second year (original Mechanical Engineer) and Reiki and Chiro are bull.
However I have friends who believe in Jesus and I do not say anything , it may be beneficial or it may be harmful , I judge only what / who is relevant to me . Others I leave to the government and society
2) Punctuation : Even if I accept your premises and those of people with “learning disabilities” even if I accept I cannot. You people should appreciate and be inclusive of foreigners like me , other wise you are just driving them into intellectual ghettos
And somebidy said tidy comments is tidy mind well, that is if an english man writes bad, not for me , you can say whatever you want, I know me and my culture,
You go and enjoy talking to a Russian or a Czech
You speak English waaaay better than I speak Russian, so I’ll shut up now. 😉
Siva, Please read the following article, I hope it will enable you to appreciate the disability and to become inclusive of those who suffer it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_disability
Text to speech doesn’t work well when punctuation is missing.
Because of the political results following the age of enlightenment, as God lost his dominion in the western world, the priest Josef Gaßner was stopped by the enlightened emperors and replaced by science. The replacement of Gaßner was done by the German physician Anton Mesmer who had to observe what Gaßner did and renamed it into “Magnetic Healing” so the universal magnetism or animal magnetism was the new explanation to the lost powerful God…
Magnetic healing also spread very fast from Europe all over the colonies and and after the opening of Japan to the western world was adopted in the early 20th Century from somebody who in Reiki literature is named Mikao Usui in Japan.
Reiki has its origin in this tradition of magnetic healing which was “founded” by the German physician Anton Mesmer. It´s quite similar to the European tradition of magnetic healing or to “Jin Shin Jyutsu” ( see http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jin+shin+jyutsu ) or to “Cranio Sacral Therapy” in the soft touch version or to “Biodynamics” or “Biodynamic Osteopathy” ( see http://jamesjealous.com/mission-statement/ ).
The explanations for all of this variations of Magnetic Healing are based on the theory of higher vitalisic forces or vitalism which was part of the so called romantic phase of European medicine in the age of enlightenment. All of this magnetism or vibration or energy theories are related to the believe that there are powerful forces in the universe who like the shamanistic audience of sun moom hills and rivers (like in a Buddhistic mandala or in Navaho sandpaintings might create a setting which should help th sick person to recover. from being sick.
Even the founder of the osteopathic profession A.T. Still a rural country practitioner (see http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199911043411910 ) who advertised himself as a Magnetic Healer in 1874 came from this “profession” and with the decline of magnetic healing in the States he changed and advertised himself as a “Lightning Bone-Setter” for a while but all of his books are full of crude vitalistic and iatromechanistic theories (he became a freemason a few weeks after his father a methodostic circuit rider died)
The times of drugless healing have passed away in western medicine but like in politics every theory and every big movement remains as coffee grounds in a society.
So there will always be some people with cognitive dissonance who don´t know or even refuse to close up to common knowledge or who live their lives with the regressive desire after puppets. There is no problem with playing ´doctor`games as long as they don´t prevent others from effective evidence based medicine.
In Germany Reiki is allowed to practice as long as you don´t pretend to heal medical named disease or tell the clients medical a diagnose. It´s considred as a variation of Ghost Healing https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2004/03/rk20040302_1bvr078403.html
As long as there is no evidence to Ghost Healing there will be no evidence to “Reiki”, “Jin Shin Jyutsu” or to “Cranio Sacral Therapy” “Kraniosakrale Osteopathie” “Osteopathy in the Cranial Field” in the soft touch version or to “Biodynamics” or “Biodynamic Osteopathy” as well …
Higher Vital Energy? Total Bull
But there are people who believe charlatans and there is lot of money in it. GO FOR IT!
There are people who do not have floor 13 , does that make it true?
yeah a lot of money e.g 25 billions a year spent on ‘alternative medicine’ in Germany
The health care system in Germany costs total 440 billions a year. That’s why the German doctors want to forbid the German Heilpraktiker but not ‘Alternative Medicine’ They want this 25 billions for their own income.
Everything in this world is only an economic struggle. It can be god, politics, therapies or anything. People who know this make money and live with less efforts then the people who don’t know this. Ever wondered why the wealth of this world is concentrated with the 20%? Because most of the population is stupid, lazy, cowards or dishonest people.
Siva Canjeevaram I appreciate your considerations about the stupidity of others. As you are a wise man knowing a lot about stupidity I suppose you are belonging to the wealthy 20% (=not being stupid!) ?? If not I am doubting your competence to judge.
In what way your question / and an answer will strengthen or support your position or mine? Explain please
Oh, ..you want to judge me? Why? Because your existence is dependant on how I am perceived in your brain? Why is it not the same thing for me? Now tell me who is the person “who don’t care” for me people like you only give me the confidence in what I am pursuing. That things really are not tough as I thInk. Keep it coming. I have learning value in that
Ok I am compassionate enough to answer you. Unlike you I honest to myself. I am not part of the 20% because I am not yet wiser like the 20% but I am sure I am in higher range. I call it the “effortless life” not sure if you get the point. Maybe you are just a hourly wage worker and won’t inderstand what I say.
Second I have the guts to face the challenges and I have proven to myself. The very act of me not going to stuff like reiki , lottery etc is a proof.
For eg my children when we went to the local school for registration there was a “lottery” I refused to let my children’s fate decided by lottery. It can be argued. But there is a sentence called “most likely”
Master sergeant Farrell says “with readiness and discipline we can be masters of fate”
I guess you believe in he energy. Nothing wrong keep living. There are murderers , crazy people and rapists living with belief and justification
Following your explanations It looks like you are a not wealthy but nevertheless a not stupid and a very wise man. Sometimes you like to judge all the others (80% stupid=not wealthy ; 20 % not stupid=wealthy) in general but at the same time you don’t want to be judged by others at all. How come that you are so outstanding? Are you an AVATAR?
I choose to ignore you. Lastly eating sushi does not make you Japanese. Hi jacking other cultures words like “Avatar” and “Guru” and “karma” without a basic appreciation for that culture is typical of confused low class unfulfilled westerners. I don’t want to feed you life when you have no life. I got the value I am looking for and now this conversation has no point anymore. Enjoy the “energy” (there are murderer and child rapists who strongly believe in what they believe)
Siva Canjeevaram I apprecate your 20% Sushi Logic and the effort you are making to tell everybody that you are ignoring me. Don’t think of blue elephants ….
Regarding BRACO being in London 8. October 2018 it’s a chance to observe states of mass trance and how such business is organized nowadays in the middle of Europe very professionally.
You might observe such phenomena in rock concerts when young girls are crying and fainting. You can observe similar phenomena in Lourdes in France but you will never observe such phenomena in a waiting room of an emergency unit in a hospital centre… 🙂 The mood there is quite different. Should we learn in medicine frim that???
Look how professional such events are organized and observe the behaviour and look at the faces and experience the people coming with buses… it makes me wondering if the Age of Enlightenment ever happened .. the Middle Ages are still present nowadays…
I have much better use for my time and more respect for myself and the people who depend on me. Keep living in your bubble. It is safe. Bye
Who cares?! It worked for me. Saved me from injury and healed faster than any doctor wanting to prescribe pain killers and muscle relaxers. I’ve known Reiki since I was 16 from a great woman with vision and my best friends Mom. I would not be who I am without alternative therapies. Western medicine treats the symptoms no the issues/problem. You CAN heal your life by changing thought patterns and always focusing on the good no matter how bad it gets out there. We are energy (protons, neutrons, electrons) to think that we cannot exchange energy – well then you are just not educated. Go back and take a HS biology class. Next thing you’re going to tell me is that there is no God and He doesn’t answer prayers – I’ll prove you wrong on that too!
Prof, do you publish posts, such as these, to demonstrate that Einstein was right when he said human stupidity is infinite.
Your comment is interesting but you are missing a much better experience! I have been there and was very impressed as around 1000 people per day are joining his sessions coming with buses. All of this is happening in the centre of the so called enlightened Europe! I would like to suggest that you should visit BRACO. He is reducing everything to the MAX. He is using a form of energy which is not dicovered by now neither in Reiki nor in science nor in old hieroglyphics nor in old Vedic secret mantras nor by Castaneda or Mantak Chia or Uriella or many others of the so called gurus of the Universe.
Here is the master of all masters of the whole known Universe. Let me present the unbelievable:
http://www.braco.me/en/
Braco will be in LONDON first time 8th of October 2018. Don’ miss this unbelievable event. Probably there will be more visitors than the Swiss guru Erich von Daeniken specialised in extra terrestric energies ever gathered fo a single event. 🙂
1000 people a day? I have seen bigger gathering of stupid people than that
Vedic secret mantras? The western hippies have this “cultural hijack” from yoga to sushi. It is like the Kumars and Guptas now making mashed potatoes and Yorkshire pudding and eating it with chicken curry.
I don’t care if you care or not. But don’t say “who cares” don’t speak for entire humanity. Say “I don’t care” oh, I am sure I should not expect honesty or absolute from people like you. Because you don’t seem to care about anything, but wait don’t you care about the results? Or “as long as it works” thing? Oh….is it? You don’t care about that too?mmm? I always wondered why a human rapes children and murders, but now I got it, because “THEY DONT FU….KING CARE”
(I am sure you would not like to take your car to a “who cares” mechanic shop? Eh?)
Hahaha. God. Hahahah
Why should god be beyond measurement? is that not a double standard imposed by god himself? If god is said to have created the human beings and he is said to “like and love and respect” his own creation, and he had given the creation to measure objectively many things? why not he make himself to be measured? why not he have like SI or Imperial units? ..because it is beyond my understanding? because I am not “built” to sense god? why did god build me so that i don’t have a capability to “measure” or “sense” him?..oh, I get it
I will get that capability to measure or sense him WHEN I DIE…am I correct?
So till the time I AM NOT DEAD..Reiki..please leave me alone! Baba
Clearly, the author has no experience (or actual knowledge) of what he is writing about. Pity, it could have been a very interesting article!
Clearly, the author has more experience (or actual knowledge) of what he is writing about than you.
Thank you for your input Edzard.
Maybe you care to explain the title of this article? How can someone suggest thatsomething does nothing and is harmful in the same sentence? Either it does something, or it does not… right?
Working with assumptions instead of hard data usually ends up with such “interesting” conclusions.
Furthermore, I find the suggestion that “Reiki is nothing but a placebo effect” very interesting.
This brings two questions :
1) please describe and explain the mechanics of the placebo effect
2) please explain why results can still be measured on Reiki patients who were in coma, asleep, or very young babies (in which cases the placebo effect cannot justify the results)
Abundant research has been made on Reiki and its use in hospitals across the world for the past couple of decaces. Leading insurance companies cover expanses such as Reiki treatment – seriously, these guys don’t take chances with their money. A bit of actual research has a lot more value than an uninformed rant against something the author is apparently ignorant about.
Wel, the author does have the decency to admit “Our own review therefore concluded that “the evidence is insufficient to suggest that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition… the value of Reiki remains unproven.””
This lack of proof does not suggest that Reiki has been proven to have no effects.
However, it does confirm that the review was not conclusive.
Et voila…
if a treatment does nothing to a seriously ill patient it harms him, might even kill him through neglect.
got it?
Appreciate your control and maturity. Trying to observe and learn from people like you.
Thanks
I was waiting for Edzard Reply. Science does not work by “experience” and “knowledge” it is only a means to an end. I guess you have never read a scientific paper or article, worst case I will go to the extent of saying you would not even finished your high school lab experiment documentations.
Why do I say this? because you ask “1) please describe and explain the mechanics of the placebo effect”
Why do I need to explain? you explain why I need to explain.
I would like to end this comment like this. There are about a million people in India who has a “guru” who drops babies from 10th floor. And people swear (and talk like you) by that treatment that it cures children diseases.
You sound no different from them. Sorry if I am offending anyother person. But this is how Jesus Christ believers work.
“Personal Experience”
I understand that crazy people live in this world. So I let you go.
I call them “life holders” because in the event of an apocalypse and when humans die these people are like the dormant yeast of humanity and bring back civilization again. Hence I consider your existence as justified.
Bye
I am never going to say that I believe in Reiki, I have never tried it, I think there are likely many “Masters” that are nothing but a hoax though as with anything. I will say this however; there are many natural phenomenon that cannot be scientifically explained, but is proven to have happened, so relying entirely on science to explain everything is illogical. We have not developed the knowledge or equipment to measure and gauge everything, so to say that something is not true because it cannot be measured or has not been measured, is quite an ignorant statement. We have very little medical evidence of how people can display super human strength in life or death situations, yet is has in fact happened, would you dispute this on the same merit, there is no scientific evidence it’s true so it can’t be? I would never credit nor discredit something just because so far it cannot be proven, I would not use Reiki as my sole form of healing if I have a medical problem, but I would not discredit it just because we do not have the research to prove it.
Case in point, when I was four years old my mother got divorced and we moved from the city to way out in the country next to my grandparents. Both of my sisters were in school and I was not, at that point there were no head-start schools, I was home everyday alone with my mother. Once we were settled, I would frequently go outside to play right by the woods where I would sit in the sand box (tractor tire). My mother would frequently check on me through the window when one day she noticed that wild animals would flock around me, mainly at first birds, then rabbits, squirrels and finally deer. Now I did not think anything was wrong with this being only four years old, but my mother was quite frankly freaked out. My mother and grandmother tried everything to keep me away from these animals, but finally had to give up because there was nothing they could do.
To this day animals and small children gravitate toward me and many times follow me around, I do not encourage them, feed them, or do anything to make them want to come to me. Frankly, it can be quite annoying especially when I am outdoors trying to work or do something, constantly nearly tripping over some unexpected critter when I turn around. Obviously, not every animal or small child does this, but there are a lot that do, I have dogs as pets now because it tends to keep wild animals farther away at least from my property. These animals and such rarely touch me, I am typically busy doing something, but they do get within a foot of me a lot, I will go out and start a nice bon fire at night to sit by and relax on occasion in my fire pit, I will get possum, coons, porcupines, etc. within 15 feet of a roaring campfire trying to get close to me, coons are mean, I do not want them coming near me.
Now you can choose to believe me or not, but I do have numerous videos from trail cams proving what I am saying. Can this be explained some way scientifically? Why do they insist on coming so close to me when I am providing absolutely no conscience initiative for them to do so?
Inexplicable phenomenon happens, we do not have all of the explanations or scientific data to support them as of yet. But, to discredit something specifically because there is no data to prove it is ignorance, like burning “witches” on a stake (likely midwives). Initially doctors and scientists were laughed at, locked up because they were considered not mentally stable, even forward thinking women at one point frequently were put in asylums. History shows us that dismissing something due to lack of proof could be detrimental to us, stay open minded, you may be considered the ignorant for future generations.
“there are many natural phenomenon that cannot be scientifically explained, but is proven to have happened, so relying entirely on science to explain everything is illogical.”
PERHAPS
but alternative therapies like Reiki can be tested in rigorous trials. it the outcomes they generate are not different from those achieved with placebo, they are not effective. in this case, there is no need to explain any phenomena because there aren’t any.
I have read quite a few posts in this thread, including – of course- the op.
From both sides of the argument, I read some interesting scientific facts! For example, I knew very little about scalar and vector forces.
I also read a lot of very heated and disrespectful comments as well as strange allegations about god, angels, aliens and a bunch of arguments that do not help the discussion progress in an intelligent or useful way.
Perhaps we could discuss with an open mind if we are to do more than simply vent off our own frustrations through aggression against people who think differently from us.
Science never progressed by being close-minded.
Scientists who brought about major contributions to our collective knowledge throughout History took huge risks by going against the mainstream ideology.
For example, when suggesting that the earth was, in fact, a globe (slightly squished) and not a flat surface as it was thought at the time. Great men and women were jailed or killed for making statements that were later widely accepted as major scientific discoveries… and cohorts more kept their mouth shut to avoid ruining their career by fear of reactions from their peers!
This is why I would like to take the opportunity to recentre the discussion by asking our little community a simple question which remained unanswered since my post a year ago : can someone please explain in (real) scientific terms the mechanics of the placebo effect?
The definition of a placebo is: “a substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.” Such “medicine” or “procedure” is often prescribed for the psychological benefit to the patient rather than for any physiological effect.
The definition of the “placebo effect” is the beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and is therefore due to the patient’s belief in that treatment.
What I understand here, is that the “placebo effect” is the observed result in improved health attributed to psychological mechanisms when a patient takes a placebo. In other words, this can be described as the tangible effects of “mind over matter”.
In that respect, I believe that Reiki can be compared to the placebo effect… and as a Reiki healer with 10 years experience, I accept this although I do not agree that Reiki is strictly dependent on the patient’s beliefs.
The reason why I do not entirely agree is that, in my experience, Reiki also brings results when the patient is not aware of receiving the treatment (such as babies, animals, people in coma etc.).
What this observation means to me is that the “placebo” effect -which I should rephrase as “mind over matter” effect, for lack of a better explanation- is not restricted to the “belief” of the patient, but also functions thanks to the “belief” of the therapist.
Here is a quote from Faith Brynie, one of the few specialists who studied the placebo effect:
Faith Brynie, Ph.D., is the author of 25 books on science and health. She regularly writes science and health articles for several websites and science magazines. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado. Her career spans from laboratory scientist work to medical technician, teacher, and university professor.
I look forward to your comments and questions.
Estimates of the placebo cure rate range from a low of 15 percent to a high of 72 percent. The longer the period of treatment and the larger the number of physician visits, the greater the placebo effect.
Finally, the placebo effect is not restricted to subjective self-reports of pain, mood, or attitude. Physical changes are real. For example, studies on asthma patients show less constriction of the bronchial tubes in patients for whom a placebo drug works.
The placebo effect is not deception, fluke, experimenter bias, or statistical anomaly. It is, instead, a product of expectation. The human brain anticipates outcomes, and anticipation produces those outcomes. The placebo effect is self-fulfilling prophecy, and it follows the patterns you’d predict if the brain were, indeed, producing its own desired outcomes. Researchers have found, for example:
• Placebos follow the same dose-response curve as real medicines. Two pills give more relief than one, and a larger capsule is better than a smaller one.
• Placebo injections do more than placebo pills.
• Substances that actually treat one condition but are used as a placebo for another have a greater placebo effect that sugar pills.
• The greater the pain, the greater the placebo effect. It’s as if the more relief we desire, the more we attain.
• You don’t have to be sick for a placebo to work. Placebo stimulants, placebo tranquilizers, even placebo alcohol produce predictable effects in healthy subjects.
–
Faith Brynie
Placebo effect is an interesting conundrum.
A placebo cure rate of 73 percent would be quite high, higher than the prescribed remedy in many if not most types of treatments.
Do you know if there is any evidence of that, or for what indication that might be true ?
Yeah sorry, what an idiot. Ruled by ego and a need to prove your ‘science’ is right. Shit and fall back in it.
Fions – sorry have no idea what you are referring to, but thank you as it brought my attention to this very long thread. ( it was a case of I felt I should be watching the Rugby but couldn’t give it the required attention so perused these comments on Reiki instead.)
There was lengthy discourse: Frank Collins – one of the reasons I tried to remove myself from this blog and jm – one of the reasons to read this blog ( so all balances out) and so many sceptics who seem to have it all sewn up (in their minds anyway)
There is a whole bunch of ‘experts on Reiki : and when you see the discourse in such lengthy context it is kind of nonsense and serves no real advancement towards knowing what it is.
I know this makes no difference : in fact I have learnt that the purpose of this blog is to provoke CAM supporters ( not that many post) so the sceptics can air their ‘superior ‘ knowledge, but from memory here are a few bits of nonsense. Honestly, a lengthy thread of assumed knowledge is something to behold: it’s a little like reading a frightening fairy tale.
Reiki can be hands on or hands off. There is no rubbing of hands. In 20 years’ practising and teaching, not one person has said they didn’t feel heat from my hands. There is no doubt that I feel the heat to varying degrees ( dependent on the recipient’s energy- I know too much to grasp)
I don’t ‘will’ or concentrate this healing: in fact the more you step aside the better as we are the mere conduits of this healing Reiki energy ( I know a difficult concept for those who know nothing about Reiki.
Reiki is definitely not massage : those therapists also attuned to Reiki will emit this too. I know for example when I have had body or facial treatments that the practitioner has also trained in Reiki – I feel the heat, yet I am unaware beforehand, I ask and I am right.
Reiki will work equally in a cold environment: one doesn’t have to be in a warm cosy room to feel the heat.
Reiki recipients’ experiences vary: each one is very different even with same practitioner and recipient.
There is always positive feed back ( I guess clients wouldn’t go back for more if not)
The old recurring chestnuts : masters and money ( now there’s a good book title)
‘Masters’ is a term used in many disciplines. Most at master level acknowledge it is a title and we are not masters of anything : in fact there is much to learn (surely that’s the premise we all should be invoking in life: we don’t know everything about everything)
Money. This forum likes to insist we are all in it for the money. Maybe some are, I don’t know every Reiki Practitioner. I and others I know offer free treatments and teaching. I ask no one to come back either for reiki or teaching (that is not my concern but theirs). You sceptics love the term pyramid selling -,honestly sometimes I think : ‘do you actually know this subject you denigrate to the point you are never wrong ‘?
When one reads in a sitting (thank you rugby) what is assumed about Reiki it is difficult to take you guys seriously. Whilst jm seemingly is not an advocate of ReikI he/she does make some interesting and valid points, and a welcome read.
As I have said before if anyone is seriously interested in Reiki, go to the governing organisations, the CNHC : where you may discover statistics about the trials in hospitals; just how popular it is in hospices and hospitals with the caring volunteers and of course the few paid practitioners in the medical environment,; you could discover why it’s becoming increasingly popular worldwide.
Reiki does no harm and a lot of good. Contrary to your posters’ assumptions, medical histories are taken and kept: we are not doctors, so would refer to GP if in doubt. We do not talk ever about cures : there are codes of ethics to follow.
Now, I probably haven’t covered all anomalies, but of course the sceptics won’t mind. They will continue to post about Reiki based largely on assumptions. But think we can safely assume that those with a serious interest in Reiki would seek out the accredited organisations and not place credence to this forum.
Happy weekend everyone.
Angela,
If I am one of the reasons you don’t post your arrant nonsense as often, then I have served a useful purpose.
If you think jm makes any sense at all, it speaks everything about you – bonkers.
The best way to know Reiki is to experience it. Reiki is something subjective for both the giver and the receiver, so its best to experience it. To experience you need to spend some some and invest some patient effort practising it as per the traditional requirements. Reiki or the phenomena of Reiki is True, it snot to be believed.
so, in your view, Reiki defies scientific verification?
That is indeed a good question. I am personally convinced that scientific verification can and will be brought forward eventually. Studying and EEG of a practitioner and/or a patient during a treatment would be a good place to start.
One only has to measure and observe properly, which hopefully will happen one day. If not, people might just keep using Reiki because of their own experience doing so and because the enjoy the associated benefits.
Setting aside ill and unwanted side effects for the sake of discussion on drug efficacy.
The problem with modern days SBM is the assumption that an FDA approval equates to efficacy (patient success), this is a fallacy, at a minimum a false assumption.
FDA gives approvals on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence. So in a test scenario, the majority might be expected to see a benefit, while a minority will see no benefit.
More than that, some drugs do not even require a preponderance of evidence standard. They simply require that the drug is determined to provide benefits that outweigh its known and potential risks for the intended population. This is a subjective and open-ended standard with movable boundaries.
https://www.fda.gov/media/110437/download
“The large scale, randomized clinical trial has been
critical in demonstrating the safety and efficacy of these drugs. Many, however, are predicting
that the future of medicine points toward developing drugs and diagnostics to treat sub-sets of
patients who may respond to one treatment but not another because of genetic and other factors.
This has led many to speculate on the future of randomized trials. “The randomized clinical trial
is excellent methodology if you want to understand, on average, whether one treatment is better
than another treatment,” notes John Bridges, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of
Public Health, “but if we think about a distribution of outcomes, no single person in the health
care system is the average.” 43 Personalized medicine presents challenges of its own, including
increased costs for researchers testing drugs and patients taking them. It seems more likely that
better analysis of clinical trial data, already being encouraged by the FDA, and pursued by both
researchers and drug sponsors as the first step towards a more personalized perspective on drug
development, will be an integral part of the evolution of personalized medicine, while continuing
to add to our overall knowledge of the safety and effectiveness profiles of medicines and
therapeutics already on the market. The randomized clinical trial is unlikely, in either scenario, to
go the way of the dinosaur.”
In other words, there is no therapy that works for everybody. So to make a claim that any particular treatment works because it has been proved by Science is simply not true in many many examples.
how nice of you to explain in detail some of the aspects of healthcare that you fail to comprehend. time to read a few good books about EBM, I think.
@EE
lol…. I don’t comprehend, because I don’t adhere to your dogma.
you haven’t even understood that real medicine is the opposite of dogmatic.
Dogma?
Perfectly justified and worthy of being ignored
@EE
I’m not interested in reading any “good books” about EBM. That not education, rather indoctrination. I’m glad you at least refer to your brand of medicine as evidence based rather than science based…. this is the real truth. Now if we could just have an honest admission from the EBM community about how effective a patient can really expect the therapy to be, and what the real risk are. Perhaps then a patient could truly evaluate the risk/benefit for themselves rather than just blindly following the advice from their medical practitioner…. as most do.
“I’m not interested in reading any “good books” about EBM”
I know; it shows!
I hardly ever use the term ‘science-based’ medicine but often ‘evidence-based’ medicine;
just did a Medline search:
‘ernst e, evidence-based medicine’ = 95 hits
‘ernst e, science-based medicine’ = 0 hits
NOW STOP TROLLING!
Are you saying that since the FDA did not approve Reiki, it then makes a good case to be a therapy alternative? Is your argument against the FDA, or For Reiki? I understand that you just did a total strawman there buy making a lengthy and unnecessary prose style post about something which is not subject to popular argument (the effectiveness of FDA) because we need some authority to verify the medicines (btw I am not vaccinated, even zero) For example you say “….“but if we think about a distribution of outcomes, no single person in the health
care system is the average.” 43 Personalized medicine presents challenges of its own, including
increased costs for researchers testing drugs and patients taking them…” These are just to make the reader tired and go away or concede. Either dishonest or simply stu..
Thank you for this article.
Exactly, Mr. E
Claiming anything as science-based is pretentious if not dubious. Because science is a very vast field, and the process is very rigorous. More than that, there is no universal science authority, (and there cant be) where we can submit the patent and get it approved as “science-based” it is either
– XYZ council approved
– Evidence-Based
Etc
There are a lot of stubborn dummies in this forum. Reiki is not likely to ‘heal’ cars, buses etc because they are not living entities. Reiki works, with the soul, on every LIVING ENTITY.
“There are a lot of stubborn dummies in this forum.”
Like your good self?
You are an arrogant person. You are entitled to your opinions. However opinions are not facts. I know that Reiki works. You are one of those people who challenge what they don’t understand.
“I know that Reiki works.”
is like saying I KNOW THE EARTH IS FLAT
It is you who is behaving like a flat earther.
OH REALLY?
Thanks for enlightening me on that point.
Truth is the perception of reality. Hence there will be always different truths!
not in science, as far as I can see.
I know, that is why science has peer reviews. And that is why people are not peers.
Siva: “Truth is the perception of reality. Hence there will be always different truths!”
Edzard: “not in science, as far as I can see.”
Nor in: epistemology; ontology; mathematics.
hear, hear
Hi Edzard. I did not realize that this old thread was still going… which is great.
Obviously many people have something to say about it and I m convinced it is for the benefit of everyone!
Millions of people (patients or practitioners) indeed “know” from experience that “Reiki works”.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you do not have such experience.
Luckily, the subject is increasingly studied and documented around the world through proper studies.
Here is one example (on lab rats):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18435597/
If you are interested in receiving a treatment yourself, I would be happy to offer you a free treatment at the clinic. I am easy to find on google. I mean it, and would absolutely love for a great scientific mind such as yours to explain to me the physiological reactions and sensations experienced by someone receiving such treatments. Perhaps you could provide us an insight into it.
By the way, you once explained to me why you considered Reiki to be dangerous. I disagree with because I doubt that Reiki therapists would try to discourage a patient from seeing a doctor, undergoing surgery or following any sort of medical treatment.None of that is incompatible with energy healing, and in fact I would recommend Reiki to be used alongside other treatments in order to maximise the chances of a positive outcome.
Here is more literature if you are curious :
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28181973/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31638407/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22030577/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28874060/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23221065/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23337565/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24105356/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24582620/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17109583/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28874060/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35911042/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35613402/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22875592/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30948444/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24083770/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17351024/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27901219/
tell me which of these studies you regard as convincing evidence, and I will comment on it.
Alexandre Monnier on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 12:59 pasted 18 links to articles hosted on PubMed. Some examples…
1. PMID 18435597: using 3 rats, no less!
2. PMID 28181973: A pilot study
3. PMID 31638407:
Design: The study design was a single arm effectiveness trial with measures at pre-and postintervention.
Conclusions: The results from this large-scale multisite effectiveness trial suggest that a single session of Reiki improves multiple variables related to physical and psychological health.
Marvellous !
4. PMID 22030577: Sample was composed of 18 nurses with burnout syndrome.
5. PMID 28874060: Review by David E McManus, Australasian Usui Reiki Association, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia.
11. PMID 28874060: Review by David E McManus, Australasian Usui Reiki Association, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia
More than a billion humans know and believe that the cow is “Kamadhenu” or God. One can be called a stupid, and two can be called a moron, but what will call you when a billion people believe in something? How about calling all the Indians that believe in the cow as god “Arrogant”? Will that cut it?
I might be arrogant, and i am ok with it. But you are dishonest and contradictory. I would rather be with an arrogant person than a dishonest, ridiculous, or contradicing person. Because I know the dishonest, ridiculous, and contradicting person will cause me more harm than this so-called “arrogant” person. There, I sent you away. Go home and come back tomorrow with a better argument that sounds morally good!
what will I call a billion people who believe in something absurd?
I WOULD CALL THEM SERIOUSLY MISLED AND PERHAPS EVEN STUPID
To more than 6 billion people (i.e. rest of the world), cow is NOT god. In fact, a lot of them want to see it served on a plate. If we were to take a vote w.r.t cow’s godliness, it looses sorely.
You are not arrogant, you are plain stupid.
The arrogancy is not mine, it is the Westerners. I was actually supporting the statement that Reiki is not plausible by giving an example from India in which Hindus (there is a billion of them) “know” that the cow is a god. Does it mean that the cow is a god? You folks are very arrogant and no body can save you. Your civilization will definitely be the first one to be doomed. As for the others are concerned, it becomes a blessing that they do not have a civilization
oh, dear!
Marvellous!
Only one other dimension? So we become straight lines with ni width or thickness?
Oh, in that dimension, thickness knows no bounds.
So it would appear!
@Ralph William Maver
Are you certain that you selected the right personal pronoun in this sentence?
Ah, you must be one of those persons who spent $4000 on a Reiki Level 4 Master Course (or whatever it is called), and are now trying their very best to protect and possibly recoup their investment.
Sorry to tell you, but you are the one who fails to understand that ‘Reiki’ and all that other bogus ‘energy medicine’ stuff is just a con trick, a way to separate gullible people from their money.
Then again, having taken a look around your Web site, it may well be that you have been the one who was conned first, and are in turn now trying to trick other people – although not very successfully, by the looks of it. I almost feel sorry for you.
My bit of advice: go find another, more honest occupation. This reiki stuff doesn’t work for you. And oh, get a better Web designer.
I don’t have a soul.
Unless we count the Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Curtis Mayfield and all albums…
Next?
I said more than a billion people believe that the cow is god, and instead of reading the rest of the statement, you people, including Edzrad, jumped on me and started calling me names, if only you read the rest of my statement, you would know that I don’t believe in Reiki. But then you revealed your true colours. Truth always goes in hand with compassion, which I guess you do not have. You failed to recognize the racism in your own comment by calling 1 billion people (Hindus) stupid. It is not the stupid people that are destroying the world, but cruelty is spread by the in-compassionate fools. Now go, respond by doing a line-by-line grammar check of my statement. If civilization falls, yours will be the first to fall.
Edzrad, jumped on me and started calling me names”
TEMPTING! BUT I DIDN’T
Now try to spell my name correctly, if you don’t mind.
Your life and existence must be in this thread, so pathetic.
I intentionally misspelt your name expecting to reveal the “ego” component in your statements.
Do you really think a misspelling in your name is so significant? No wonder your country is a philosophical mess, caught in between two ideologies. My concern is that people with your attitude are destroying the rest of the world, like that guy in 1853, American Commodore Matthew Perry who forcefully opened Japan for trade. Not only are you arrogant, but you are also blind. May demise to your civilization come soon.
“Do you really think a misspelling in your name is so significant?”
No, and I did not claim it to be.
I am really not interested in this conversation anymore, yes, it does seem that you are ‘awfully triggered’ and conversing with me. because the replies are almost an instantaneous basis, like the insecure Donald Trump tweeting. “…Now try to spell my name correctly, if you don’t mind.” These are your words, and you now say that you really did not mean it. I am just getting tired as if I am giving directions to a blind and deaf person. I just came to your thread because as a massage therapy student, 8 years ago, I was having an argument with my students and lecturer that non-evidence based therapies should not be promoted aggressively, but with a note and disclaimer because the public are being taken advantage by scamsters providing sham treatment. Now all those things are lost but we are now in a different territory, I was giving the one million Hindu and cow example to demonstrate that sometimes things does not matter, but it has to be handled more in a human way. It seems that you do not have that big heart or genroisty, but instead it seems that you keep this thread live just for fun. And the more time passes, the more small you become in your replies, I am not sure maybe you died and it is your grandson that is maintaining this blog, who knows? Go to hell, do whatever you want. If you want a closure, please block me.
“I am really not interested in this conversation anymore”
By contrast, I never was!
It is you who foisted it on me.
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:15
“I am really not interested in this conversation anymore”
By contrast, I never was!
It is you who foisted it on me.
I understand your need to feel good about your actions. I have a bigger heart than you. Hence, I am sorry.
bye bye
“your country is a philosophical mess”
which country are you referring to?
To be specific, I am an RMT, and I don’t believe in Reiki, but that does not mean that we go around insulting people. Why? Because it is not necessary. Only two types of people do unnecessary things (a) fools, and (b) malicious people. How do we know that you are not some sort of psycho living a pathetic life, and you are taking this opportunity to ‘bash’ people, in the name of reason and objectivity? Do you want us to trust you? You just put one billion people beneath by calling them stupid (and the other commenter who would rather see a cow on a plate, how insensitive that comment is? No wonder people hate America and Americans) Initially I thought you were arrogant. I take it back, because I think you are simply malicious (and maybe half your country)…one billion Hindus are stupid? (I gave that as a metaphor, I was born a Hindu, but I am not an hindu, now)
” I am an RMT”
RMT
[RMT]
ABBREVIATION
(in the UK) National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers.
Yeah, I am a railroad worker, and I am from the UK. These things make you appear so petty.
“we go around insulting people”
When and how did I insult you?
That is why I said you are blind, and that is why I said that you must belong to a particular demographic. As I said, I am not interested in conversing anymore. I am more honest than you and made my intentions clear. You need not block or moderate me, But there is no point in coming back to this thread.
thanks for that!
The English have the power of speech and the tool of articulation. Using this, they conquer all the world without doing all the hard work or shedding blood, but don’t worry, justice may be late, but it will rule one day, what was got by simply using the tongue, will also be lost using the same tongue. In the end, they will be the most pathetic souls among all life forms:
Edzard on Sunday 15 January 2023 at 08:39
what will I call a billion people who believe in something absurd?
I WOULD CALL THEM SERIOUSLY MISLED AND PERHAPS EVEN STUPID
oh, I see: you think I’m English!
“oh, I see: you think I’m English!”
That was supposed to be an insult, I don’t really care who you are. I don’t care even if I am wrong. You should know that I am not making an effort to know you. I can google you in five minutes, but you are not worth my time. All I know is that you are a troublemaker (Like Donald Trump) who lives just for the fun of it. Trump uses certain things to disguise is contempt and selfishness, you are just using the war against alternative medicine to shield your general malice. You are not a good person, that I know. And I am sure that nobody would have told you that — greatest insult.
Troll: a person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
I may be a troll, but you are simply an abuser and maipulator of knowledge, power, and position. At best, I would have annoyed a few people. But you just called one billion people stupid, then guess what your real intentions might be? You have more power to damage the world then me, If I am a troll, you are simply a evil person
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:30
Troll: a person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
… and I thought the troll had said ‘bye bye’ a while ago…
Really? What are you? an old man aged 70 years or more? Nothing much to do in life anymore?
Can’t let it go without having the last word? Lot’s of peeing match I guess!
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:37
… and I thought the troll had said ‘bye bye’ a while ago…
I challenge you to keep all the conversations in between you and me so that people can judge what is going on. If you delete it, it would mean that you do not want people to know, let’s see how honest you are.
I have no intention to delete this comic relief!
Like I said, tongue they use to unleash their malice, by the tongue their souls will die a pathetic death
a characteristic of a troll is that he/she cannot quit easily
That’s right, senile, sadist, probably news does not excite you, so come back and read the comments to feel that you are indeed alive. So pathetic. Bye — If you really think I am a troll, then you probably should not reply, every internet user knows this. But if you are intentionally engaging with a troll, then it means that there is something wrong with you greater than that troll. Like I said, I might be a a troll, but you are even greater than that — an evil person (because you have power, position, influence) — don’t…
It’s not that I think you are a TROLL, you have proven it to us.
If you can call one billion Hindus stupid. I should not mind for you calling me a troll.
And this time, I am deciding to quit. What a bore!
That would be fantastic.
However, the anecdotal evidence of numerous other trolls commenting here has proven that they cannot help themselves because their ego gets in the way and they want to have the last word. After a short time, they do get back in touch.
Scientifically, trolls do not exist. One way to see it is that trolling is a modern social phenomenon in response to the passive aggressiveness of people in power, who mostly abuse it for personal reasons. Pointing out to ‘trolls’ is akin to saying ‘there….the black people’. Trolls appear to be trollish usually because of their lack of ability to ‘articulate’ or sound meaningful. Nevertheless, it does not mean that a ‘troll’ is a type of person that is beneath the ‘not-trolls’. If you see the Netflix documentary ‘Who Can Be a Tyrant’, at the end of the show the professor says that anybody can become a tyrant. I am sorry you are blind to this fact of humanity. But I know that it is impossible to reason with the blind.
You are very at logical fallacies, in fact, one of the best/worse I’ve seen for a while.
I am always fascinated by people who make up shit, pretend it is real despite no evidence (real evidence, not SCAM pretendy nonsense), try to take the intellectual high ground with limited intelligence, display a total lack of self-awareness, then crack the shits when far, far more intelligent and capable people (eg, the good prof) tears them another arsehole (to use the crass vernacular).
Yes, people like that exist in great number and confirm, once again, Einstein’s assertion that human stupidity is infinite. Tangentially, it also demonstrates there are no gods because only an evil bastard would create so many morons.
Anyway, that is off my chest, goodnight all from Tasmania, Oz.
I am “very” at what? Typical colonizer settler paternal mentality. What logic? Are you logical? Is your society logical?
Everything you do has a logic. YOu belong to a demographic of people who use language to make yourself superior and claim authority over everything including knowledge and land. And the only thing you have is ‘language’ (nothing else)
Do you know Jacques Derrida?
Don’t worry, end time is coming up for anybody who is faking, but overly controlling the resources of this planet by tyranny.
Remember this Nature does not operate on laws, it is the universe that operates on laws. Nature is a subset of the universe, and has its own principles on which operates. A baby could be born in 7 months, 8 months, or 9 months. There is no law operating here, but a principle. For this reason, science cannot control nature (that is what your likes are trying to do). People like you wont understand these, because it is called ‘wisdom’
Waiting for the time for your likes to be erased from this planet, permanently
Responding to ignorance with arrogance brings us back to square one.
[Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 13:27
tell me which of these studies you regard as convincing evidence, and I will comment on it.]
Perhaps you could start with the first one?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18435597/
I look forward to your comments.
heart rate is hardly an outcome measure that tells me anything about health
most humans are not rats
this is not anywhere near any of the claims made by Reiki healers
So let me make sure I understood you well… you do not actually believe that heart rate and blood pressure give any useful information about the health of a subject?
The British Heart Foundation begs to differ : “Adrenaline makes your heart beat faster and your blood pressure rise as a way of helping your body cope with the situation. Once stress has passed, your blood pressure should go back to normal.”
source: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/risk-factors/stress#:~:text=When%20you're%20stressed%20your,should%20go%20back%20to%20normal.
Furthermore, you would actually claim that carrying tests on lab rats has no scientific value? Perhaps you do not believe it to be a reasonable way to measure the effects of Reiki while avoiding the placebo bias?
The University of Cambridge would reply to your comment : “Almost all disease-linked human genes have counterparts in the rat. Pinpointing these should help researchers to develop rat genetic models of human disease. Rats are often used to study behaviour in psychology experiments. Their brains are larger than mice, and the animals are less timid and more intelligent.”
source : https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/research-at-cambridge/animal-research/what-types-of-animal-do-we-use/rats#:~:text=Almost%20all%20disease%2Dlinked%20human,less%20timid%20and%20more%20intelligent.
Regarding what you consider Reiki healers to be claiming (or not claiming actually) I believe this last comment of yours perfectly illustrates your lack of knowledge on the entire topic. If nothing else, Reiki healers (and their patients) along with a growing part of the scientific community claim that Reiki has an important effect on stress levels (which can be determined by the above mentioned study on heart rate and blood pressure). Any google search will bring you an avalanche of evidence to the contrary.
I think we have gone full circle from my initial comment on this thread: with all the respect I owe you and the many acronyms that you love attaching to your name (MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd) you do not actually know much about the subject at all…
“quod erat demonstrandum”
ok, let’s agree that Reiki is an excellent treatment for reducing the heart rate of rats.
Happy now?
“you do not actually know much about the subject at all”
thanks for the ad hominem
I do admit that I know less than you – for instance, I did not know that Reiki or any other form of energy healing is effective for the following conditions you advertise on your website:
◆ bio-hack: improving performance / memory / focus / sleep quality
◆ tackling stress / anxiety / depression
◆ chronic pain / back & neck pain / sciatica
◆ headaches / migraines / fatigue
◆ fertility / menstrual pain
◆ sport injuries / post surgical recovery
◆ autoimmune & inflammatory pathologies: rheumatoid arthritis / IBS
so, please show me the evidence – I am keen to learn from you.
Thank you Edzard,
Honestly, I am not “happy” but I am satisfied that you admitted -although relunctantly- that the points I made were, in fact, reasonable and backed up by sourced evidence.
It is regrettable that you did not sound so pleased… I believe that we are both helping each other and making progress – which benefits not only ourselves but also other people.
I also regret that you seemed to believe that I was making an “argumentum ad hominem” against you.
This is absolutely untrue.
Here is the definition of “ad hominem”, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary :
(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.
source : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
Not only did I actually address your argument, but I also did not attack you. I simply stated a fact = that you do not know much at all about “Reiki”. This is not an attack, nor is it disrespectful. I simply expose the fallacy that you do know about Reiki and can comment with authority on the subject.
And it is 100% ok not to know some things. I easily admit to being very ignorant on a vast number topics. I also happily admit that you are very knowledgeable on a vast number of topics.
But neither of us should be so presumptuous that we want to appear as omniscient: it is not an attractive human trait, and it is a danger to the evolution of science.
Good scientific research should start with the presupposition that there still is much to learn that we do not yet know about. Otherwise it turns into sterile dogmatism and burries any form of progress.
Actually, even some things that we hold at a certain point in time as “ascertained scientific facts” could be later disproved by new discoveries. Mistakes and omissions can be made. New knowledge can be acquired which renders the former one obsolete.
For example, when I was a child, it was believed that humans were born with a finite quantity of neurons and that we could not build anymore during our lives.
But we know now that in fact there is such a thing as “neurogenesis”. And “neuroplasticity”. And probably many more things that we do not yet quite understand although we can sometimes observe them – such as “the placebo effect” or “Reiki”.
By the way, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I believe those two things to be very different from each other. I have succesfully helped people who were technically incapable of benefitting from the placebo effect. One such person was a newborn baby, another was in a coma and many other were 100% convinced that Reiki would have no effect at all – and were rolling eyes at the time they reluctantly accepted to receive a treatment. And yet, surprising recoveries occurred when, prior to my intervention, the symptoms were worsening (all things being equal).
Now going back to the very valid point that you made with this list of ailments presented as examples of areas where Reiki can help people restore their health, I would invite you to get in touch with people I have treated in the past. If you wish, I can ask them individually if they would consent to your enquiries. In fact, I believe this would be very interesting if you can spare the time.
Better yet- if you have good contacts in London hospitals – I would gladly give some of my time to test such hypotheses.
Alternatively, if yourself or someone whose objectivity you trust (a relative, a colleague…) + suffers from a pathology mentioned on this list can find the time to visit me at the clinic, I would be more than happy to offer them a treatment.
Now going back to the “lab rat” study, I totally agree: 3 rats is not a big cohort – but the results are there.
Another study was made using rats too (with a slightly larger number of rats as some placebo control groups were included to the study protocol).
Still a small cohort, I grant you that… but still clear results.
source : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18435597/
Obviously, we could go through the growing list of studies published about Reiki and discover that many are unreliable, whether they were inconclusive or whether the protocol of study is not water-tight. But although it is vital to expose the “snake oil merchants”, I also think it would be regrettable to “throw the baby away along with the dirty bath water” as we say in France.
I genuinely invite you to assit me in that process because you are in a formidable position to do so.
Kind regards,
A.M.
I am not interested in rats; show me clinical trials on human patients that support your list of indications; if you cannot, you are a quack in my view.
Edzard on Sunday 05 November 2023 at 14:07
I am not interested in rats; show me clinical trials on human patients that support your list of indications; if you cannot, you are a quack in my view.
Edzrad does not eat rats, he eats only humans, the ones he doesn’t like. So, give him that.
@Alexandre Monnier
OK, I read the full paper, see
https://www.academia.edu/28826207/Reiki_Improves_Heart_Rate_Homeostasis_in_Laboratory_Rats
– PROBLEM: Just THREE rats were tested. In all, the researchers collected just 15 data points per group, with effect levels far smaller than baseline change levels. How on earth these people can claim with a straight face that they reached p < 0.05 is beyond me.
– These three rats were exposed to a stressor, causing a heart rate increase. PROBLEM: the data (see fig. 3) clearly show a much higher variability in initial heart rates (220 – 360 bpm) in the treatment sessions compared to the sham sessions (260 – 300 bpm with just one outlier). This already skews the results enough as to make the outcome useless. The higher initial heart rates in the first group will inevitably also show the biggest decrease. Also, I only see 12 data points in the sham session graph where there should be 15.
– The claim is that 'real' treatment caused a 5% subsequent decrease in heart rate, and that sham treatment caused no such decrease. PROBLEM: sham treatments were performed by students who imitated the real practitioners' hand-waving, i.e. there was no blinding. The students' less confident handling of the rats may have introduced additional stress. PROBLEM: sham treatments were all carried out AFTER the real treatments, which means that a certain amount of conditioning may have occurred – which is what may well be responsible for the much lower variability in initial heart rates in the sham sessions.
Interestingly, the researchers also mention studies in humans, which generally produced no significant results due to several limitations – one of which is, erm, 'interesting':
"… the use of humans in such studies has the disadvantage that experimental interpretations are encumbered by the variable of belief or skepticism regarding Reiki."
No clinically validated treatment modality requires patients to believe in it in order to have an effect. People do not have to believe that their beta blockers work in order for the medicine to regulate their heart rhythm. People do not have to believe in the skills of their orthopaedic surgeon to have their broken bones set properly. People do not have to believe in the effects of diuretics in order to get rid of excess fluid build-up. Etc etc.
That latter comment in fact says it all: reiki is just quackery, a placebo treatment that only 'works' if someone believes in it. And in particular reiki is a way for greedy quacks to separate gullible would-be quacks from their money.
Thank you Richard.
Please refer to my lengthy reply to Edzard on the topic where I address your concerns. There is also a link to another study on lab rats that did include a control group.
By the way, many Reiki therapists (including me) do voluntary work and treat people for free or for a very low fee (usually the room hire fee) so I find your closing argument not only mistaken but also insulting.
Best,
@Alexandre Monnier
No, you did not address my concerns. The ‘study’ with 3 rats is laughably bad and does not really show that reiki does something beyond placebo.
The positive result is simply caused by the sham sessions having far fewer cases of high initial heart rate than the earlier ‘real’ sessions. Again: just compare the two graphs in figure 3.
Qi, ‘subtle energy’, chakras etcetera do not exist (or to put it more precisely: there is no credible evidence for their existence), and reiki is just silly hand-waving.
In case you want to argue that you can really feel ‘qi’ or ‘energy’ in and around your customers: that’s simply an illusion: you’ve trained your brain to ‘feel’ something that you firmly believe is there. In reality, there’s nothing there to feel, and this was conclusively demonstrated over 25 years ago by a 9-year-old schoolgirl.
I was referring to reiki ‘masters’ charging significant amounts of money to people who want to become practitioners themselves (although I believe that these courses no longer cost many thousands of dollars).
And the reiki practitioners that I find online absolutely charge a significant amount of money to their gullible customers – usually something between 50 and 80 euros per hour.
Yes, lying down in a relaxing, soothing atmosphere, surrendering your well-being to someone who is confidently telling you that their hand-waving will make you feel better can of course reduce stress and even make you feel better for a while – but so can having a massage or a nice evening out to a concert or the likes. There are no measurable clinical effects; it’s all just placebo.
Richard Rasker wrote:
As I’ve stated previously:
THEY DON’T ACTUALLY EXIST
Or to be precise:
• THEY DON’T EXIST IN ACTUALITY
• THEY DON’T ONTOLOGICALLY EXIST
To believe otherwise would be an example of ontological confusion; a category error arising when something is referred to in ways that imply it belongs to a category of things to which it does not.
https://edzardernst.com/?s=ontological+confusions
Sorry Richard, but I am confused : are you suggesting that the placebo effect works on rats?
I’m sorry for my lengthy response but I enjoy conversing with you and I wanted to address the points you raised the best I can.
Regarding this part [PROBLEM: sham treatments were all carried out AFTER the real treatments, which means that a certain amount of conditioning may have occurred – which is what may well be responsible for the much lower variability in initial heart rates in the sham sessions.] I agree with you, both on the problem and on your suggested explanation.
This is why in my previous message I pointed you in the direction of a lengthy reply to Edzard in which I referenced another study that includes a distinct control group (instead of using the same batch of rats for the sham vs actual reiki).
Here is the link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18435597/
I also entirely agree with your comment about Reiki “masters” – what a pretentious title by the way, that alone annoys me. But I think it is mostly due to a poor translation of the Japanese word “sensei” which really should be translated as “teacher”.
By the way, I do not teach – at least not yet. But I do give tips to my clients in the hope that they can develop an ability to heal themselves (for free).
Believe it or not, but I have received a fairly square “cartesian” education, and I am proud of it.
Frankly, for most of my adult life, I felt nothing but scepticism towards Reiki and “energy healing” in general. I was convinced that this thing had the word “CHARLATAN” written all over it in bright red letters and was the playground of ex-hippies who took too many acids, loved tie-die shirts and listened to very bad new age music.
So yes, I was very much put off by what you describe: so-called “masters” who charge a fortune for something I did not understand and trusted even less.
Even a conversation some 20 years ago with my Tai-Chi and Qi-Gong teacher failed to change that.
I highly respect this person, who dedicated his life to training to very high level in various martial arts and practised meditation daily – as I now do too (meditate that is to say, as I stopped martial arts over a decade ago).
Anyway, while he understood why I felt very sceptical about Reiki, there was, in his opinion, a great deal more to Reiki than what I thought.
If I remember correctly, his words were “I believe Reiki to be the most effective way of treating people in the absence of medication or surgical equipment” (to which I would add “plus the knowledge and skill required to use them”).
Still, I did not believe Reiki to be anything else than virtual snake oil in a Japanese packaging. I only changed my mind when I “tried” one day on an injured friend – as a party trick. It was nothing but a joke at the time.
Interestingly, you could call it “sham Reiki” because I had not yet studied Reiki, hence my problem when I see “sham Reiki” in studies. That experiment happened one evening in Paris in 2012… I was blown away by the outcome and tried again the very next day on somebody else. And I was blown away again. It was shocking and I was litteraly as gobsmacked as I would have been if I had walked through a wall or become invisible.
To this day I still dislike using the word “Reiki” when I talk about what I do – precisely because it is such a mixed bag and due to the number of practitioners who really don’t bring much to their clients. Also because I really do not use much at all what I was taught during the Reiki training : symbols and Japanese words that seem to help some people achieve a certain “state of mind” – I prefer using straight forward meditation.
But the word “Reiki” seems to have some traction with a growing crowd so I make do with it… and there are apparently many Reiki practioners who do bring satisfaction to their clients.
Anyway one day, out of curiosity, I did eventually decide to “learn” Reiki in the hope that it would give me keys to understanding the phenomenon I had stumbled across and hopefully improving it. I chose “teachers” who charged very little: I figured that if there was no victim, there might be no crime. “Follow the money” they say in all those “whodunit” movies. I guess you could say that I followed the “no money trail”.
In fact, the fee I paid just covered the rental of the space in which the training was provided. Those people didn’t need the money : one was a retired professor of microbiology from an eminent French university, and the other had a full time job. Teaching Reiki was their passion, not a source of income. Ok, it was still no guarantee that they weren’t batsh*t crazy cult followers, but I knew one of them since I was born and I trusted her (the retired university teacher).
I find your comment regarding my presumed ability to feel ‘qi’ or ‘energy’ in and around my customers interesting.
Because in fact, I did not use to feel much at all for about a decade of pro-bono practice in my spare time. And I was not charging anything until I decided to make this my profession, eventually heeding the advice that several people had given me for many years.
Therefore I did not train my brain to ‘feel’ something that I firmly believe is there… or if I did, I failed at doing so. And I started by firmly not believing that anything was there. I just got shocked by the outcome of several experiments on wounded or sick people.
My clients however, often comment about what they feel. They say that my hands feel extremely warm, that it sometimes feel as if I had more than two hands (the sensation apparently lingers where I applied my hands before I move to another part of their body). Some say that they feel “weird” or “drunk”. Many get very lethargic or fall into a very light semi-conscious sleep.
The odd thing is that while I give a treatment, it sometimes makes me yawn in a very unusual way (hard to describe), and/or stimulates my lacrimal glands (eyes and nose getting weirdly runny / whether I yawn or not). I don’t know what to make of that, but it never happens in this way outside of my Reiki practice.
Obviously, I agree with your other comment regarding the value of massages or a nice evening out to a concert (which by the way can cost as much if not more than a Reiki treatment).
But I have no doubt that this “relaxation” is very different from whatever is happening during a Reiki treatment.
I also disagree with your conclusion because I have personally witnessed situations were the placebo effect went right out of the window as explained in previous posts : treatment of a newborn baby, of a person in coma, of a person who is highly incredule and litteraly rolls their eyes all the way to the massage table.
Thank you for the link to the Wikipedia article on Emily Rosa. I enjoyed that story although I had never heard about “therapeutic touch”. Indeed, it is beautiful to see with what simplicity and elegance Emily designed a protocol of study to test the hypothesis… and age 9 no less! Or should I say no more?
I am not English but I try to write as well as I can in this language. I am not a scientist or a doctor but I try to keep my thoughts in order. I am not here to ridicule people or to pick up a fight, but I will also not let myself get bullied or insulted.
This being said, I genuinely welcome all critics as I think they help me progress – whether by confirming or infirming what my experience has led me to believe.
Still, I sincerely think that there is a tangible, explainable phenomenon that is just begging for us to shine a light on it.
I believe it to be a natural built-in physiological mechanism that is as old as humans are, and that we could all benefit from understanding better if we are to harness its power and maximise its benefits.
Silly “hand waving” is not my thing, but let me ask you this question : what is the immediate natural instinctive reaction that you have if you bump into something and bang your head or knee? Or when you have a headache? Or a tummy ache? Wouldn’t you instinctively apply your hands to it? What if it was not that “silly” after all?
If your daughter falls from her bicycle, wouldn’t you hold her and/or put your hands where her wound appears to be? Why do we have this instinct at all, what physiological function could it serve in the evolution of our species?
Our hands are highly innervated, and those “cables” carry back and forth a large quantity of electric information, which is processed by our central nervous system. Meditation (in my opinion, Reiki is a form of applied meditation) in turn pilots the little “bulit-in chemical factory” composed by our Thalamus, Hypothalamus, Thyroid, Medula, Pineal gland, Pituitary gland, Hypophyse, Medula, etc… And the chemicals they produce can have an effect on people nearby (apparently the cortisol generated by stress in a person is “contagious” as it will ellicit a similar response in nearby individuals – and apparently oxytocin also impacts other individuals within a short range when released in your body).
A whole lot is going on, that we now understand very well. But I believe that there still is a whole lot going on and that we cannot yet explain. And this, by the way, includes the famous “placebo effect” that some people wave as a crucifix to repell the “complementary therapies”.
Sure, we have given this “effect” a name, but we are none the wiser as to how and why it actually works – despite its measurable impact on our health. I would simply call it “mind over matter”, and in that respect I agree that it is not very different from Reiki.
I personally just think of Reiki as a therapy, as all therapies can be complementary unless they are incompatible of course (for example chloramphenicol and penicillin)…
I could be mistaken, but I believe Reiki to be highly compatible with everything else, which is why I found Edzard’s comment about “Reiki being dangerous” rather preposterous.
Alexandre Monnier wrote:
Really? You’d better tell this guy:
The same Integrity Centre that has an Alexandre Monnier.
https://www.integritycentre.co.uk/alexandre-monnier/
Further reading about that “pretentious title”:
● The Reiki Association, The Usui System of Reiki Healing.
https://www.reikiassociation.net/usui-shiki-ryoho
● The Reiki Association, The Office Of The Grand Master. 🤣
https://www.reikiassociation.net/OGM-office-of-the-grand-master
Why laugh at things? Are you okay with being arrogant? Or, do you think that arrogance is necessary and reasonable?
laughing is healthy – perhaps the only way some SCAMs can contribute to our health!
“Edzard on Tuesday 07 November 2023 at 14:37
laughing is healthy – perhaps the only way some SCAMs can contribute to our health!”
Wow! Laughing at other people is healthy? I guess for some it’s even pleasurable.
The right English word is
sa·dist
/ˈsādəst/
Yes, Master?
putting words into peoples’ mouths is a nasty habit – I wrote “laughing”, not “laughing at other people”!
@Alexandre Monnier
Thank you for your (indeed) extensive response. For the sake of the other readers, I’ll try to keep my comment as concise as possible, even though this will be rather lengthy reply all the same.
First one important general principle: I only accept the existence of things that are extensively backed by science. A logical consequence of this is that in case of unproven phenomena such as ‘life energy’ that things like reiki and therapeutic touch claim to be based on, I will first look for simple naturalistic explanations – the most important one being that the mind is very good at creating sensations that aren’t real. The reason for this is simple: the same brain centres that are involved in processing real sensations and actions are also active when merely imagining those sensations and actions. This mechanism is not limited to humans, but works more or less the same way in animals, and is responsible for many important traits that help survival. These are not just simple things such as learning from painful experiences, but also more complex traits such as empathy (in social animals), where seeing another being suffer causes more or less similar (but illusory) experiences in the observer. This also works for positive interactions: if a healthcare worker or doctor or even an alternative practitioner treats someone with compassion and a positive mindset, the patient will not only often reflect this positive demeanour, but actually feel better. And this in turn encourages the nurse/doctor/practitioner that they are doing the Right Thing, and should keep going. I also mention this social reciprocity mechanism in my book.
All claims and phenomena described by energy medicine adherents can be adequately explained by regular science and the above workings of the brain, without having to resort to unproven ‘energy’ or ‘chakras’ or ‘meridians’ or the likes. And yes, that also goes for revelatory experiences as the one you describe.
Attributing phenomena to unproven qi or energy etcetera is basically making up an explanation for things that you don’t know or understand, resulting in a false sense of knowledge and understanding. It is far better to simply say “I don’t know why this happens” – but humans have a very hard time accepting uncertainty and ignorance. We (me included) are constantly looking for explanations and reasons why things happen. And if we can’t find any, we tend to make up some.
Then there is another quite human problem, especially for practitioners (i.e. you) and staunch believers: they have invested a lot in their particular belief, not just in terms of money and effort, but also emotionally. So I absolutely understand their extreme reluctance to accept that they are wrong, no matter how convincing the evidence is against their particular belief. I too would be quite miffed (to put it mildly) if someone came along and told me that all my knowledge and experience with regard to biomedical engineering was in fact all nonsense, and that I essentially wasted decades of my life.
Oh yes, absolutely. Rats are quite intelligent social animals, and can exhibit modulation of pain and stress in response to interaction with not only other rats, but also humans. Also see e.g.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5918296/
Also, largely mental phenomena such as pain and stress are particularly susceptible to placebo effects. However, the results of the rat study can be adequately explained without any placebo effects.
Sorry, but this appears to be the same study (DOI 10.1089/acm.2007.0753). I don’t think that adding a control group fixes the problems, as the study design is flawed in more than one respect. At the very least, real and sham treatments should have been carried out concurrently, with rats randomly assigned to either group, and with practitioners unable to see the rats (i.e. blinded cages). There also should be more rats in either group, at least a dozen or so.
All that the collected data suggests now is that the rats got used to the situation over the course of a few weeks, as indicated by a generally lower initial stress response upon exposure, without reiki having anything to do with it.
Same here, although I started out with an ‘open mind’, willing to accept claims that homeopathy and ‘energy medicine’ etc. worked, while gathering scientific evidence. And exactly this latter became a problem: as with ordinary medicine and chemistry and electronics, I wanted to know how these things worked, as the ‘explanations’ given by adherents were not satisfactory at all (as in: not supported by any science). I could find nothing. Then I started doubting if it worked at all, and unfortunately, the evidence to that extent was also limited to personal claims and testimonials, with no acceptable science.
So after a couple of decades, I concluded that these things don’t work, and that alternative practitioners are simply wrong in what they claim and believe. As I still wanted explanations, I shifted my focus to finding out why people believe in these things even though they are unsupported by science, and that resulted in some interesting insights and, eventually, a book. Several of the things you describe are almost literally found in my book, e.g. the ‘party trick’ thing and the personal epiphany as the starting point of belief. I also mention that any ‘special sensations’ may be experienced by both practitioners and their clients – which is quite logical when you think about it.
So yes, I think I understand why you are convinced that reiki etc. really works, even though in reality, it doesn’t. Yes, you can often make people feel good and relaxed, and sometimes relieve pain and stress to a degree, so in that respect you may be helping people. But this all comes down to social interaction between you and the customer, both verbally and non-verbally, creating a calming atmosphere, and perhaps the unusual, novel experience, in particular for first-time customers. There is no special ‘energy’ or ‘information’ involved, and this also explains why many wildly differing forms of alternative treatments all appear to work equally well (or equally poorly, for that matter). There’s just the practitioner and the customer, and their interactions and beliefs determine the outcome of the treatment, also depending of course on the customer’s ailment – as alternative treatments almost never work for clinically verifiable conditions.
There is much more to say about this, but I hope that this clarifies my point of view, and why I think that alternative practitioners and believers are not necessarily more stupid than other people, but wrong all the same.
[Edzard on Sunday 05 November 2023 at 14:07
I am not interested in rats; show me clinical trials on human patients that support your list of indications; if you cannot, you are a quack in my view.]
Hi Edzard.
Now this, on the other hand, is a beautiful example of “argumentum ad hominem”!
Nevertheless, here are some studies picked at random on google that deal with humans.
I am not qualified to evaluate the seriousness or reliability chosen of those studies but am confident that many people on this forum are and I look forward to their comments.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28874060/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32618216/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29551623/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36272846/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21821642/
I did not ask you to post a few studies but to show me studies that you think support the therapeutic claims you make.
As you cannot do that, I assume you are a charlatan.
Hi Edzard,
I posted a few links to studies that support some of the therapeutic claims I made (most of the available studies on Reiki nowadays seem to be about pain and stress management).
You have not been able to explain to me why those studies are flawed.
You have also refused to receive direct testimony from former clients of mine (assuming they would agree to speak with you), refused to send people whose feedback you could trust for a first hand experience of my treatments (which could have been yourself by the way) or to put me in touch with some of your many contacts within the medical community to carry out a “proper” clinical assessment.
Therefore, I assume you have no problem insulting people and calling them names when you run out of reasonable arguments.
the studies you posted are laughable and do not refer to the full list of claims you make on your site.
by stating that you are a charlatan, I am stating a fact not an insult:
char·la·tan
[ˈʃɑːlət(ə)n]
NOUN
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill:
Hi Edzard,
I imagine that if those studies are so bad, you will quickly and easily explain why they are not reliable?
Your laughter is hardly an indication of those studies’ weakness, but rather an indication of your inability to make a reasonable argument against them.
I also note that you still have not replied to all the other ways I suggested to verify my claims.
But thank you for reminding me of the definition of a charlatan. THanks to it, I know understand that you are a charlatan in the sense that you have no knowledge or understanding of Reiki although you claim that you do. Neither do you have skill in Reiki, but I won’t hold that against you as you do not claim to have any.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18410352/
Edzard now teaches English for a living
good idea – but a bit late in life
Edzard on Tuesday 07 November 2023 at 08:37
the studies you posted are laughable and do not refer to the full list of claims you make on your site.
by stating that you are a charlatan, I am stating a fact not an insult:
char·la·tan
[ˈʃɑːlət(ə)n]
NOUN
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill
My bolding, as here:
Specific claims, including medical claims, for which the claimant, Alexandre Monnier, has not provided supporting evidence, despite being asked.
There appears to be a dire lack of integrity at the Integrity Centre. Perhaps they’re using an alternative meaning of the word “integrity”.
Thank you for those precisions Pete Attkins, it is obvious that you can read – although you apparently failed to understand what I wrote earlier about my opinion on the Reiki “master” title.
I do not personally know Ameet, and I will send him your regards when and if I meet him at the clinic.
I find it regrettable that Reiki associations seem insistant on calling teachers “masters” (or even worse = “grand masters”. As I explained earlier, poor (translating) skills and human ego are likely to blame for this.
I suppose it is a bit like doctors who love attaching a bunch of acronyms/titles next to their name in order to commend respect, when in fact they have little respect for others and a very limited understanding of some of the things they claim to have authority on.
Thank you for that link Edzard, but you still have not answered my questions.
Showing me a study that says Reiki does not work does not mean that another study saying that Reiki works is flawed.
However, I do agree with you that there are many poor studies on Reiki, and only a few reliable ones.
More importantly, there are very few studies on Reiki – full stop.
Luckily, the subject seems to be enjoying more and more attention- and therefore more people are studying it. This can only a good thing in my opinion.
It is interesting to note that there is a lot more research being carried out on meditation (which, in my opinion, involves the same “mechanics” of the mind and its physiological impact). Perhaps this will result in a better understanding of Reiki, or at least help design better research protocols.
please read up on the difference between a study and a systematic review;
sure you noticed that the 1st author of our systematic review is a ‘REIKI MASTER’!
Thank you Edzard, for bringing my attention to the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. I noticed two things when reading the systematic review you referred me to.
1 It was written by yourself and M S Lee.
As do not know M S Lee, I ran a quick search and here is what the National Library of Medicine told me about M S Lee’s publications:
– All publications on the subject of complementary therapy appear to be systematic reviews
– All publications on the subject of complementary therapy appear to have been written with E Ernst
– All the above-mentioned reviews concluded that the studied complementary therapy was ineffective
I have rarely seen such consistancy in medical science, and I can only imagine that you must both be extremely proud to have such impeccable results.
Perhaps it makes perfect sense, since a systematic review requires that the investigator define, at the proposal-writing stage, clear criteria for deciding which studies will be included (and which ones will not).
However, what I have found when researching studies and reviews on “energy medicine” or “biofield therapy” or “Reiki”, is very far the clear-cut conclusions that you and M S Lee reached.
I have no reason to doubt the quality of the methodology or the intellectual honesty of the authors, whether they are M S Lee, E Ernst, or the hundreds of others who produce scientific literature.
So I ask myself why such a variety of conclusions? Why is it that some studies conclude that Reiki brings measurable health benefits, while others conclude that it does not?
In some cases, this is easy to understand : some studies are “pilots studies” and admit openly to being too limited and should not be considered to be conclusive. Others may follow unsatisfactory protocols or suffer from some kind of bias and are therefore unreliable.
But some are reliable, and yet their conclusions differ…
I imagine that you might be tempted to enlighten me by saying that “all the trials that show Reiki to be ineffective are reliable trials, while those that conclude otherwise are laughable”. And perhaps you are right.
But in my experience, information is often naturally varied and complex. Extreme dichotomy is likely the sign of a heavy bias. So what could therefore explain that bias? Again, since I have no reason to doubt the scientific method or the intellectual honesty of the authors, I considered the following:
One thing that stands out about the systematic review you shared with us, is that it is more than 15 years old. I can safely assume that the studies being reviewed were at least 15, possibly 20 years old or more. In fact, it appears that some of the documents included in your systematic review were as old as 1997.
But here may lie the problem : I often read in studies about “energy healing” or “biofield energy” that “there is a need for more, better studies because the existing ones are found to suffer from such and such limitations”. Therefore, it is natural to observe that, as time passes, there are more and more / better and better studies being produced.
Unfortunately, older systematic reviews such as the one you co-authored with M S Lee are probably themselves unreliable because they were based on a poorly populated research pool (both in terms of quantity and in terms of quality). The early research on energy healing being notoriously scarce, poorly carried out and underfunded, it is not surprising.
Sure you noticed that I did previously provide you with a link to a more recent review dated from 2017.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28874060/
Here are some even more recent ones (published last year):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377362/
In fact, I had a look on Pubmed to see what exactly was the progression curve of studies with the keyword “Reiki”. Here is what I found:
32435 were published in the past 5 years
46166 were published in the past 10 years
53773 were published in the past 20 years
55114 were published in the past 30 years
56288 were published in the past 60 years
In other words, more studies on Reiki were produced in the past 5 years than since the beginning of recorded medical history! And it would be reasonable to imagine that the quality and the variety of sources of such studies has also followed the same curve.
Therefore, a systematic review that is 15 years old and includes sources that are 25 years old may not provide the best tool to judge of the effectiveness of Reiki.
– All publications on the subject of complementary therapy appear to be systematic reviews
NOT TRUE
– All publications on the subject of complementary therapy appear to have been written with E Ernst
NOR TRUE
– All the above-mentioned reviews concluded that the studied complementary therapy was ineffective
NOT TRUE
sorry, I did not bother to read the rest of your post because of the stench of pseudoscience
Maybe those who are coming up with such conceited didn’t get the memo that Reiki can be used to dissolve ego: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odj9m76rfus&t=310s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37kIRC2HMHs
Perhaps they should intensify their Reiki practice. 🤣😂
🤣 🤣 🤣
I know, it’s super cringey, I’ll grant you that.
This is precisely that kind of stuff that caused me to spend 20 years refusing the very idea of “energy healing” being a “thing”.
My pet peeve with Reiki is the whole “lineage” thing. What a load of bs… I mean if there was any value to it, how would they explain Dr Usui’s own ability to treat people? And how would they explain that I was treating people successfully before I even studied Reiki and received an “attunement”?
For me, the main value of the Reiki “certificates” were the ability to get an insurance so that I could practice professionally.
Nevertheless, there is something very real about energy healing. I know it can be replicated, it can be measured, and we must find a proper way to analyse it scientifically.
I have no doubt that, in time, it will be better understood and hopefully better applied than it is today.
But I totally get why people laugh at it because I was laughing too… until I witnessed the effects of such treatments and realized that the joke was on me!
This is why I think Edzard’s blog is great. Clearly many people here have the skill and experience to separate the good information from the poor quality one.
I only wish that the contributors kept their cool and proceeded with more benevolence.
It is one thing to shed light on poor studies, it is another to “laugh” at someone and try to humiliate them just because we do not agree with them. This is perhaps the worst effect that “internet blogs” have on humans, something in the vein of Godwin’s law I suppose…
That hasn’t happened in over 100 years of Reiki’s existence. But I will wait, maybe it will happen in my lifetime, maybe not. Until then the joke’s on Reiki and it’s practitioners and I will keep laughing….
Fair enough, but you may end up just as surprised as I was when I tested this myself… especially as there has been more medical research produced on Reiki in the past 5 years than in the previous 95 years.
However, a huge bias I am starting to sense is that Reiki therapists differ greatly from each other.
This is definitely going to be a problem when carrying out large scale studies.
It is not a matter of disagreeing with you and others of the delusional ilk, because it not about opinions (as the old adage goes, everyone has one just as they do a lower vent) but real evidence, not what you think is evidence.
I can’t believe I even have to write that, because it is (should be to all) self-evident. Some on here may laugh at you, however, there is a fairly good reason; your posts are laughable, like it or not.
Consider this; Einstein postulated the existence of gravity waves over a hundred years ago based on hisTheory of Relativity.
As a theoretical physicist, he used reality and mathematics to come up with revolutionary thinking about the universe. At every rest, his Theory survived stringent testing.
After a century, sensors were developed to test the existence of gravity waves. They are very low frequency and permeate everything in the universe. Finally, real evidence was found to verify their existence beyond doubt. Contrast your claims of the existence of Reiki energy with that of gravity waves; one of the most elusive forms of energy (gw) has been detected, but the far more prevalent energy (according yo you) is undetectable.
Do you really expect not to be the subject of scoffing through to derision?
Hi Franck, thank you for reminding me about this story. You probably knew it already, but interestingly, Einstein himself did not believe in gravitational waves.
So I cannot agree more with you : evidence beats opinions any day because it turns out that Einstein was right – although it was not actually proved until after his death.
Indeed, it is regrettable that many people here deal with opinions instead of evidence, such as Edzard who wrote earlier this morning : [sorry, I did not bother to read the rest of your post because of the stench of pseudoscience]. He did this after a short “all caps rant” claiming that I made a false statement. By the way, here is the evidence that supports the statement that apparently displeased Edzard:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Lee+MS&cauthor_id=18410352
As it is plain to see, every single result of the first page of that query confirms what I wrote earlier – despite Edzard’s hissy fit.
Anyway, this is precisely why I had referenced a couple of links to recent systematic reviews and RC trials for your consideration because, quite frankly, I prefer intelligent answers to scoffing, derision and opinions (and definitely to all caps hissy fits).
I would to take this opportunity to thank Pete Attkins and Richard Rasker for explaining to me in layman’s terms why the old study on rats was unreliable. But this is, so far, the only study out of the many I referenced, that received an actual informative comment. Everything else was unfortunately just opinions and derision.
Edzard referred me to a systematic review study he made with his colleagues 15 years ago, based on studies that were between 15 and 25 years old. Those studies were not only ancient but also unreliable as the authors themselves concluded by exposing the low quality of the work they reviewed.
At the time, research on the subject of energy medicine and meditation were still in their very early days, and there was a dire lack of good material to review and it is prefectly understandable that systematic reviews concluded just this : that there was no reliable evidence.
Nowadays, however, there is a growing body of work that I would like your community to consider.
Unfortunately, I am still waiting to hear why those are not valid because all I am hearing now is people’s opinions and sanctimonious comments wrapped up, when I get lucky, in history lessons (I do love history lessons).
Hi Edzard,
Thank you for your informative reply this morning:
[Edzard on Wednesday 08 November 2023 at 07:25
– All publications on the subject of complementary therapy appear to be systematic reviews
NOT TRUE
– All publications on the subject of complementary therapy appear to have been written with E Ernst
NOR TRUE
– All the above-mentioned reviews concluded that the studied complementary therapy was ineffective
NOT TRUE
sorry, I did not bother to read the rest of your post because of the stench of pseudoscience]
I m sorry if I hit a nerve, but here is the source to back up my claims (those you consider to be untrue):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Lee+MS&cauthor_id=18410352
I checked individually all documents on the first page of that query and unfortunately it appears I was right.
I would have preferred it if you actually kept on reading and responded to my questions, especially as they were supported by sourced evidence. Perhaps I should have used “all caps” to draw some attention?
Regrettably, it seems that fits of anger and “opinions” is all I can expect from you. Perhaps somebody else here will kindly take the time to analyse the reliability of the research papers I referenced as I lack the competence to do so myself.
perhaps you need to lear how to do Medline searches?
here are the first 10 (of almost 500) papers of my former co-worker that come up, if I do the serach:
Cite Share
Evidence Map of Cupping Therapy.
Choi TY, Ang L, Ku B, Jun JH, Lee MS.
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 17;10(8):1750. doi: 10.3390/jcm10081750.
PMID: 33920643 Free PMC article. Review.
2
Cite Share
Acupuncture for depression.
Smith CA, Armour M, Lee MS, Wang LQ, Hay PJ.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 4;3(3):CD004046. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004046.pub4.
PMID: 29502347 Free PMC article. Review.
3
Cite Share
Acupuncture for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Armour M, Smith CA, Wang LQ, Naidoo D, Yang GY, MacPherson H, Lee MS, Hay P.
J Clin Med. 2019 Jul 31;8(8):1140. doi: 10.3390/jcm8081140.
PMID: 31370200 Free PMC article. Review.
4
Cite Share
Osteopathic manipulative treatment for pediatric conditions: a systematic review.
Posadzki P, Lee MS, Ernst E.
Pediatrics. 2013 Jul;132(1):140-52. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-3959. Epub 2013 Jun 17.
PMID: 23776117 Review.
5
Cite Share
How to design high quality acupuncture trials-a consensus informed by evidence.
Zhang YQ, Jiao RM, Witt CM, Lao L, Liu JP, Thabane L, Sherman KJ, Cummings M, Richards DP, Kim EA, Kim TH, Lee MS, Wechsler ME, Brinkhaus B, Mao JJ, Smith CA, Gang WJ, Liu BY, Liu ZS, Liu Y, Zheng H, Wu JN, Carrasco-Labra A, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Jing XH, Guyatt G.
BMJ. 2022 Mar 30;376:e067476. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067476.
PMID: 35354583 Free PMC article.
6
Cite Share
Maca (L. meyenii) for improving sexual function: a systematic review.
Shin BC, Lee MS, Yang EJ, Lim HS, Ernst E.
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2010 Aug 6;10:44. doi: 10.1186/1472-6882-10-44.
PMID: 20691074 Free PMC article. Review.
7
Cite Share
Ginseng for cognition.
Geng J, Dong J, Ni H, Lee MS, Wu T, Jiang K, Wang G, Zhou AL, Malouf R.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 8;(12):CD007769. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007769.pub2.
PMID: 21154383 Review.
8
Cite Share
Guidelines for the prevention and management of children and adolescents with COVID-19.
Liu E, Smyth RL, Li Q, Qaseem A, Florez ID, Mathew JL, Amer YS, Estill J, Lu Q, Fu Z, Lu X, Chan ES, Schwarze J, Wong GW, Fukuoka T, Ahn HS, Lee MS, Nurdiati D, Cao B, Tu W, Qian Y, Zhao S, Dong X, Luo X, Chen Z, Li G, Zhang X, Zhao X, Xu H, Xu F, Shi Y, Zhao R, Zhao Y, Lei J, Zheng X, Wang M, Yang S, Feng X, Wu L, He Z, Liu S, Wang Q, Song Y, Luo Z, Zhou Q, Guyatt G, Chen Y, Li Q.
Eur J Pediatr. 2022 Dec;181(12):4019-4037. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04615-4. Epub 2022 Sep 16.
PMID: 36109390 Free PMC article.
9
Cite Share
Herbal medicine for treatment of children diagnosed with COVID-19: A review of guidelines.
Ang L, Lee HW, Kim A, Lee JA, Zhang J, Lee MS.
Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2020 May;39:101174. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101174. Epub 2020 Apr 12.
PMID: 32379639 Free PMC article. Review.
10
Cite Share
Warm needle acupuncture for osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Jun JH, Choi TY, Robinson N, Park JY, Jun EY, Kim KH, Lee HW, Lee MS, Park S.
Phytomedicine. 2022 Nov;106:154388. doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2022.154388. Epub 2022 Aug 12.
PMID: 36030745 Free article. Review.
and here are 5 examples of his papers that are not SRs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35604687/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35354583/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36537115/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37664455/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34458094/
lastly, let me tell you that my patience with your pseudo-arguments, errors, lies and ad hominems is over.
I will therefore not respond to any more of your BS.
cheers
edzard
Thank you Edzard, I finally had what I came here for : some actual answers. It is a pity they were not answers to my questions (regarding the evidence and links to research that I submitted to your scrutiny)
And you are right, I do not know how to do Medline searches, neither do I know how to evaluate the solidity of the research being produced (which is why I come to you for this).
Now, can you please let me know whether the evidence I submitted to your attention is actually solid or not, and why?
Because apart from the old study involving 3 or 4 rats, I have not received any useful criticism.
At any rate, thank you for clarifying this : I realized that you were not willing to offer those answers so far, and I now know that you will not answer them in the future. Hopefully, someone else will.
PS : I think your patience evaporated long before I came to ask questions on this blog, judging by the way you address other people. I initially took it personally but I now sadly realize that it is the norm, not the exception.
Thank you Edzard, you proved me wrong and appearances are indeed deceiving. I made a mistake and apologize if it upset you.
I definitely should have read other pages because when I ran the query, the entire first page was indeed as I described it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Lee+MS&cauthor_id=18410352
Now if we could go back to the main topic (providing me with critical analysis of the evidence I submitted previously) it would be amazing.
Here it is again, so you don’t have to scroll up that long thread:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28874060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326483/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377362/
I understand that Edzard will not do that, but if anyone can spare the time, I would be grateful.
Come on Man, Don’t be a cuck. Be honest!
Some people believe stuff not because it is scientific, it is because they “feel good”.
They don’t care about science, neither should you(about them).
1 Billion Hindus believe the cow is a god.
To whom does it matter if it is right or wrong? The Hindus have their own reasoning behind that belief.
This is why the worlds are separate, this is why the Jews are asking for their own country (so that you don’t go there and say “Moses is a fictional person because science does not support it”. (that is a metaphor, not an example, don’t pick on it, you petty) This is why you live in your house and I live in mine. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE AN IMPENETRABLE SKULL, so that you don’t know what shit is going in me, and I don’t in yours.
This is the truth of the world. There is no point in arguing (unless you are taking pleasure out of it, or your ego and life depends on these arguments) There is too much arguing going on in the modern world. If they only focus their energies on solving real problems. OMG!
Hi Steve,
I understand your point but I actually want to know what are the physiological principles behind what I have experienced literally hundreds of time when healing people. I am curious, I am methodical and I would love to better understand and explain this phenomenon to the people who ask me about it.
I am not a “cuck” by admitting when I am mistaken. In fact, I think it takes courage. I have no problem telling Edzard or whoever else is being rude what I think of them. In fact, I have done that enough times here already.
But I don’t argue for “sports”, I have no time or energy to waste on that and honestly couldn’t care less if Edzard and his friends like me or not. I am not here looking for friends. I m here looking for the strongest possible scrutiny/criticism of the scientific literature that is being produced on the topic of “energy healing”, “induced meditation”, “Reiki” etc. because I think it matters, since I decided to make energy healing my profession a year ago.
Your comment is not bad, but it is out of place. I don’t know what the “truth of the world” is, and I am not sure I agree with your take on it but it does not matter. Perhaps you are right and I am wasting my time here.
I just hoped, for short time, that in this little community there would be people actually able to provide the information I have been seeking : an impartial scientific criticism of some studies that I found.
Unfortunately, it appears that you are right and I am probably wasting my time. Apparently people are only coming here to vent their frustrations and are not that interested in science after all.
I think that I will not find a more zealous critic
Hi Steve,
I understand your point but I actually want to know what physiological principles are behind what I have experienced literally hundreds of time when healing people. I am curious, I am methodical and I would love to better understand and explain this phenomenon because it interests me and because it is my job.
I am not a “cuck” by admitting when I am mistaken. In fact, I think it takes courage. I have no problem telling Edzard or whoever else is being rude to me what I think of them. In fact, I have done that enough times here already.
And I don’t argue for “sports”, I have no time or energy to waste on that and honestly couldn’t care less if Edzard and his court like me or not. I am not here looking for friends. I am here looking for the strongest possible scrutiny/criticism of the scientific literature that is being produced on the topic of “energy healing”, “induced meditation”, “Reiki” etc. because I think it matters, since I decided to make energy healing my profession a year ago.
Sadly, nobody even said a word about the clinical trials and reviews I have brought forward. Actually, it is not true, 2 people commented on a study that involved 3 rats. But It seems they will not or cannot comment on the other links I have posted for reference. A lot of old men scoffing and acting like schoolyard bullies with a condescending tone is all I found.
I don’t know what the “truth of the world” is, and I am not sure I agree with your take on it but it does not matter. Perhaps you are right and I am wasting my time here.
I just hoped, for short time, that in this little community there would be people actually able to provide the information I have been seeking : an impartial scientific criticism of some studies that I found.
Unfortunately, it appears that you are right and I am probably wasting my time. Apparently people are only coming here to vent their frustrations and are not that interested in science after all.
The problem is only in the west (because of thier need to “scientify” everything) they are a very split society when it comes to faith. Neither this way nor that way.
The problem happens when things are “misappropriated”. I am okay with the hindu’s belief that the cow is god. But when some of the gurus selling toothpaste come on TV and say “The Cow is god and is proven by science”…That is when the problem starts.
Reiki is not scientific but is a “belief system”, (just like any belief system like “Democracy” etc. Yeah, democracy works beautifully!) Reiki practitioners should not misappropriate the word science (And they should not even try it, IMHO) and leave the science to scientists like Edzard. You just carry on with your business, (As long as people believe you) just don’t fool or cheat people.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28874060/
You posted this link, twice, in your 18 links on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 12:59
Items 5 & 11, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED:
Review by David E McManus, Australasian Usui Reiki Association, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia.
HARDLY AN IMPARTIAL REVIEW !
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9326483/
You posted this link in your 18 links on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 12:59
Item 12. PMID: 35911042
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9377362/ PMID: 35981119
[My formatting for clarity]
Holistic Nursing Practice impact factor 1.2
Good grief
Hi Pete, thanks for taking the time to format all that but I am not sure I understand what you meant.
It seems that you copied and pasted the text and highlighted some parts, and then wrote “good grief” at the end.
Another one of your enlightening comments was “marvelous”. Perhaps you could elaborate?
I read the link you pasted about the definition of a quasi-experiment. Should I undertand that a quasi experiment has no value? If so, why do people even carry out quasi-experments?
My understanding is that it lacks the element of random assignment to treatment or control. Does that renders the experiment worthless?
Perhaps what you highlighted makes immediate sense to someone trained in the analysis of scientific medical publications, but for me it is just highlighted text and I struggle to find the problem with it.
In your previous part, you wrote
1. PMID 18435597: using 3 rats, no less!
=> Ok, does that mean that the cohort is too small?
Anyway I received better explanations from other contributors as to why this study is unreliable (rats are sensitive to placebo effect, no distinct control group, decreased sensitivity of the rats to the artificial stressor after multiple activations etc.)
2. PMID 28181973: A pilot study
=> is a pilot study worthless?
3. PMID 31638407:
Design: The study design was a single arm effectiveness trial with measures at pre-and postintervention.
Conclusions: The results from this large-scale multisite effectiveness trial suggest that a single session of Reiki improves multiple variables related to physical and psychological health.
Marvellous !
=> is a single arm effectiveness trial an unreliable protocol of study? (If so, why do people even do such trials?)
4. PMID 22030577: Sample was composed of 18 nurses with burnout syndrome.
=> is 18 too small a cohort? Are nurses not valid subjects?
5. PMID 28874060: Review by David E McManus, Australasian Usui Reiki Association, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia.
=> what was wrong with this one besides the cringey note at the bottom? (blahblahblah … are dedicated to letting the love of Reiki shine in the world.)
11. PMID 28874060: Review by David E McManus, Australasian Usui Reiki Association, Oakleigh, Victoria, Australia
Sorry for the duplicate
Edzard wrote to you on Wednesday 08 November 2023 at 11:39
lastly, let me tell you that my patience with your pseudo-arguments, errors, lies and ad homonyms is over. I will therefore not respond to any more of your BS.
cheers
edzard
I concur.
😭😭😭
I doubt anyone here has time to teach you the basics of how to interpret research findings and/or differentiate good research from bad. One would want to learn the alphabet before making an attempt to understand complex sentence structure, just saying. In any case, it is about time you finish shitting on the chess board and fly away.
I get it, your time is precious and you cannot teach me medical science on this blog.
However, maybe you could try answering my questions?
It wouldn’t take much more time than it takes to insult me…
oh, dear!
how long do you think it takes to teach medical science from scratch?
[medical school lasts 6 years]
@Richard Rasker
Thank you so much for your detailed response yesterday. I really appreciate it, not only because it was so informative but also because I had nearly given up on the hope to read an actual answer to my questions – I guess I got too used to the sneers and derision I normally receive here in lieu of scientific information.
So thank you for bringing water to my mill, and for doing so without acting like a sociopath!
Somehow your reply had escaped my vigilance but I finally managed to read it. It is definitely shedding light on many dark areas and I will go to bed less ignorant having read it.
Rest assured that “I don’t know why this happens” is my standard reply to most of my clients, and they are usually ok with it. They seem satisfied with the outcome of the treament I provide and that is all that matters I suppose.
I appreciate that you took the time to explain how science could explain what “energy therapists” and their clients experience, it sounds like your book will be on my shopping list before long.
However, there are a couple of events that I struggle to fit in the frame you provided me with.
For example, a few years ago (just before Covid in fact), I suffered at the hands of an osteopath who mangled my cervicals by accident… bad stuff followed immediately (dizziness, nausea, sensation of burning skin on my arms, intense weakness, heart racing suddenly for now reason etc. Some days I would wake up and not be able to move my arms!
My metabolism was floored instantly and I spent months with a neck brace on and off etc. It has been 4 years now and, although on 3 occasions my own treatments provided huge improvement of my condition, I am still working on fine-tuning this if you see what I mean, as I am not 100% recovered yet.
I may very well have unwanted laxity in the upper part of my spine for the rest of my life, so nowadays I try to stabilise this by developping muscles with isometric and isotonic exercises.
Here is my question : how could science shed light on the fact that, when I finally decided to treat myself one afternoon, using my “meditation + applying hands” technique (let’s call it Reiki for the sake of convenience), I felt a very intense heat and tingling around the area of my neck where my hands were during the treament – and I do mean intense – followed by a very strong lethargy and urge to sleep (which I did) and the next morning, out of nowhere, my C1/C2 cervical articulation (possibly even atlanto-axial as it was right behind my earlobe?) made a loud “pop” when I gently tilted my head to the side.
This was followed by an intense rush in my head. Luckily I was sitting on the train, reading the news, or else I might have collapsed. After 20 seconds it all calmed down, and my neck felt immediately 80% better.
I mean: no more neurological mess as before (it had been months of suffering), better mobility, immediate and drastic improvement: I even felt that I could breathe a lot better which is weird. This can’t have to do with social reciprocity or placebo effect, can it?
Another strange “structural” correction also happened in July (4 months ago). Apparently I had been training a bit too early / a bit too hard in an attempt to rebuild the muscle mass I had lost since that cervical injury.
While doing push ups, I suddenly felt a subluxation at a very odd articulation : where my right clavicle meets my sternum.
During 3/4 days I felt as if I had a “kink” in my neck and my right shoulder did not feel too good either. I even felt a very slight return of my neurological symptoms from years ago.
But on day 5, I tried treating myself with “Reiki” again, holding my left hand on my right clavicle for 45mn. Again, I could feel intense heat in the area (that heat seems standard when I use meditation as a healing method by the way). Minutes after, I heard a loud popping noise again (you know, the sound of those bubbles bursting in the synovial fluid when you crack a joint) and then immediate release of the pain and tension in my neck with associated regain of mobility. Seems that the clavicle found its way back thanks to the healing session.
One of my clients also described a similar thing during a treatment to the lumbar/sacral area of her spine after a bad fall (although the popping sound was more like a very gentle internal click according to her), again associated with immediate reduction of pain and totally recovered mobility.
Could “placebo” explain this in any way?
@Richard Rasker
Short addendum (I promise)
Btw the ‘party trick’ thing and the personal epiphany as the starting point of belief, for me, was a badly sprained ankle.
The injured person could not put any weight on it due to pain, could not take her sock off due to the impressive swelling + the pain and after the treatment, she was literally carried out of the room and into a taxi.
16 hours later (the next day) there was no swelling, no bruising, no pain and she was walking without a limp.
I am not a doctor but I had tons of sprained ankles as I used to do a lot of contact sports in my youth (plus I m slightly hypermobile, so dislocated shoulders and sprained ankles are things I am used to).
As such, I think I can say that I am a bit of an expert on sprained ankles (the ones that received a strapping, the ones with a cast, the ones with the simple anti-inflammatory cream, the ones that needed rehabilitation with physio work, the ones that just need “6-8 days of taking it easy” etc.)
Anyway, no way I would have expected this person to recover so fast… I really thought she was pulling my leg (no pun intended) when she told me the day after the “party trick”. It was just shoking. Less than 24 hours…
Is this something that can potentially be explained by the placebo effect or social reciprocity? I mean, if so, we really need to start “caring” and taking more time with patients at GP practises around the country. It’ll actually save everyone some time and some money, not the other way around! Voltarene and Ketum might complain about sales going down but who cares…
@Alexandre Monnier
Thanks, but I’ve also been known to lose my temper – although usually only when people keep coming up with BS all the time without ever addressing comments and rebuttals.
Some short reactions:
– Musculoskeletal complaints often have real mechanical causes that may respond well to all sorts of manipulation (mobilization, massage), but also mere relaxation. I too have lots of personal anecdotes about lower back pain as well as a recurring shoulder dislocation that got better (and sometimes almost spectacularly so) without any treatment, regular or alternative. But I think that specialists such as orthopaedic surgeons, neurologists and physiotherapists may have better answers than I do.
– This ‘things-got-better-after-treatment’ phenomenon can involve several more mechanisms and explanations apart from social reciprocity and placebo effects. There is for instance the natural history of the ailment: many things get better by themselves, given sufficient(!) time. This is also linked to another human trait: people first tend to wait a while to see if things resolve naturally; if this does not happen in a couple of weeks or so, and/or instead even (appear to) get worse, then that is often the moment when people decide to seek help. But oh irony: getting treatment at the peak of pain and discomfort is almost guaranteed to ‘work’, as in: things then tend to improve quickly (which of course is why it’s called a peak), even if the treatment itself does nothing.
– About scientific research into alternative modalities: there are several problems on several levels here. One problem is prior plausibility: most competent scientists will not waste (scarce) time and (even scarcer) funds on researching unlikely claims such as ‘healing powers at a distance’, unless there is already compelling evidence that there’s something going on that can’t be explained otherwise. Which means that most of the research is carried out by significantly less competent scientists, who on top of that are almost always ardent believers in the modality under scrutiny, and are very strongly biased towards proving its validity(*). The result is what you saw in the reiki mouse studies: a several serious flaws and overlooked confounders, simply because these people were completely focused on signs that reiki might be doing something. And perhaps even worse: these mouse studies were subsequently included in broader reviews. The result is something like a mud brick edifice: it looks like a real building with solid foundations and everything, but in reality it is crumbling as soon as you take a closer look, and only remains standing because lots of people are patching it up and rebuilding it all the time, claiming all along that it is quite strong and dependable.
*: There is often a serious conflict of interest: not only have these researchers invested a lot in their alternative modality of choice in terms of money, time, effort and emotions (read: beliefs), in most cases their income also fully depends on these things ‘working’, so it is not in their interest at all to prove themselves wrong.
Anyway, it took me almost 2 years and several hundred pages to explore lots of possible mechanisms and explanations for the disparity between what people experience and believe on one hand, and what science tells us about the world and ourselves on the other hand – and I find new things even as we speak. It is a bit difficult to cram this into a couple of comments on a blog page.
If you are interested, I could send you a copy of my book (I have still 4 copies to give away free to interested readers of this blog), but then again, it is of course more in my interest (haha) if people actually buy the book. Then again, if you want to cheat, there are already lots of ‘free’ PDF copies floating around the internet as well … :-(.
FWIW: most people think it’s a pleasant read, also for laypeople (not too much scientific jargon), and with lots of interesting observations and information about our way of thinking and acting. And oh, with several minor errors of mine too – as I’m only human as well 🙂
Anyway, I have work to do, so I’ll keep it at this (and this thread is also extremely long as it is already). All the best, and I really hope that my comments provide you with some food for thought.
@Richard Rasker
[Anyway, I have work to do, so I’ll keep it at this (and this thread is also extremely long as it is already). All the best, and I really hope that my comments provide you with some food for thought.]
Your comments most definitely did that, and I really appreciate the time you have dedicated to answering me in detail and in a way that I could understand easily.
Anyway I will definitely purchase your book as I believe in paying people for their work 🙂
PS : If you or one of your relatives ever suffers from something that “doesn’t go away on its own” and “has passed the peak point”, feel free to contact me on 07737166597 and I will happily offer one or two sessions for free – especially if you can take the time to debrief your experience with me after that!
All the best,
Alex
@Pete Attkins @Frank Collins @RG
I still have a couple of stubborn doubts, but Richard succesfully dispelled many others.
As I wouldn’t want to abuse Richard’s time with more questions, could some of you chime in on those final ones? Then I promise to give all of you a break!
[many things get better by themselves, given sufficient(!) time.]
[‘things-got-better-after-treatment’ phenomenon when treatment happens at the peak of symptoms]
100% agree with Richard on that (and the main reason why I rarely need a doctor unless something dramatic happens). Good sleep, good diet and regular exercise is often all it takes for our body to maintain itself.
However, I often deal with clients who suffer from chronic issues and who have tried everything else multiple times and over longs periods of time before coming to me.
Frankly, I too would also have exhausted every “plausible” avenue before knocking on an “energy healer’s door.
Therefore, these two logical assumptions often do not apply in my work as I usually intervene way after the “peak” described by Richard. Neither do I intervene as a 1st “port of call” after someone suffers an injury or falls ill.
More often than not, people seek my assistance a very long time after “things would have gotten better by themselves if they could”. And yet, surprisingly fast recoveries tend to occur, even at this point which I struggle to explain myself.
[I too have lots of personal anecdotes about lower back pain as well as a recurring shoulder dislocation that got better (and sometimes almost spectacularly so) without any treatment, regular or alternative]
Agreed, but the timing is what pushes me to consider that there may be other possible explanations. I suppose the devil is indeed in the detail. When something is causing a constant problem and the situation is not evolving, and after several days/weeks/months a (“Reiki”) treatment is immediately followed by the resolution, one can reasonably ask themselves if there is a correlation and what its nature may be.
[Musculoskeletal complaints often have real mechanical causes that may respond well to all sorts of manipulation (mobilization, massage), but also mere relaxation]
100% agree with you on that. In the example I provided it was definitely relaxation that allowed the structural self-adjustment without any manipulation whatsoever. In fact, I doubt that even a very skilled physiotherapist could have operated with such precision and in such a delicate manner – had he even been able to spot the offending articulation that revealed itself as the “cornerstone” of the problem (which was causing neurological problems due to pressure near the atlantoaxial cervical vertebrae).
The question then is : how did my “meditation” / “energy healing” / “Reiki” treatment succeed in providing the relaxation of the specific muscle (which I believe in my example may have been the subclavius muscle) that was until then contracted and had resisted other more “standard” therapeutic methods?
It is regrettable that “good” scientific research is so costly. Although I understand the logical choice of budget allocation to what has the most chances to succeed, it also means that, as a result, the scientific community tends to only “properly” research things that have already been researched “properly”.
Therefore, I suppose we will be reading a lot of poor studies on meditation / Reiki / energy healing until they gradually become more numerous and more reliable, thus progressively attracting more funding.
Given the fact that meditation (or “Reiki”, “energy therapy” or whatever else we want to call it) is not going to be very profitable for any large pharmaceutical company, this could indeed take a very long time.
I highly doubt any professional healer such as myself could finance a large scale randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial… perhaps this is what “Reiki associations” should be doing?