Reiki is a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that never ceases to surprise me. Recently I came across a truly weird study. Here is its abstract:
Reiki is a biofield therapy currently used in hospitals worldwide. Scientific evidence supports its effectiveness in addressing many physical and emotional conditions in human patients. However, few studies currently exist demonstrating the effects of Reiki on animal health. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of distant Reiki on owner assessment of the health and wellbeing of adult dogs by measuring frequent complaints in veterinary practice. The research was conducted as a blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Eleven variables were examined, analyzing changes after 3 and 6 weeks of distant Reiki treatment. The statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test to compare changes between the groups. The study demonstrated that dogs receiving distant Reiki showed significant pain reduction compared with the control group. After the third (P = .05) and sixth sessions (P = .02), all dogs in the Reiki group showed some pain reduction. No significant difference was observed in the other variables analyzed. Study results suggest that Reiki may have beneficial effects, particularly for pain relief in dogs. These preliminary results warrant further research to more accurately assess the effectiveness of Reiki in veterinary medicine.
Already the very first sentence of the abstract does not inspire me with confidence. Only a deeply biased person would state such an exaggeration. This seems to not be science but pure wishful thinking.
Studying the full paper, we find that it elaborates on Reiki a lot but does not tell us what happened in the control group. As the author calls this a placebo-controlled trial, we must assume that the dogs in that group received a placebo. But what sort of placebo exactly? There is no generally accepted placebo-Reiki!
Does the author not know that the whole point of publishing a study is that others can repeat the experiment? Is she aware of the fact that, if you don’t disclose crucial methodological details, a study is irreproducible? Does she know that irreproducible science is no science?
Perhaps more relevantly, we do not even know whether the dog owners were blinded and how successful that blinding was. My guess is that they were unblinded or could bedlind during the trial. If I am correct, the positive result is not due to Reiki but to a placebo effect by proxy.
In any case – deblinding or not – it seems blindingly obvious that the study is false positive and that Reiki is a SCAM that amounts to a scam.
5 Responses to Distant Reiki for Health and Wellbeing of Dogs – WHAT IS NEXT?
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I’m all in favour of distant reiki. In fact, it should be kept as far away from patients (human and otherwise) as possible.
Time for both laughing and weeping.
>”Of the 7 animals whose caregivers did not respond [and were excluded], 4 animals died between the first and third week of the study. Of these, 2 belonged to the control group and 2 to the Reiki group.”
So, the only objective outcome parameter available was excluded from the study. Besides (or because) it showed no difference between the groups.
They made 22 statistical comparisons, out of which two (2) reached their p<0.5 criterion for significance. NB: They only cared about statistical significance. Said nothing about clinical significance.
Nor did they care about the statistical effects of multiple testing, whereby false "significance" is bound to appear for pure …ahem… statistical reasons. They should have performed, e.g., the Bonferroni correction for mass comparisons. This trial is testing m=22 hypotheses with a desired overall alpha=0.05. The Bonferroni correction would test each individual hypothesis at alpha=0.05/22=0.0023.
None of the observed comparisons comes anywhere near that level.
Another thing: I'm wondering how it feels to be a "certified" reiki practitioner doing this nonsense whether locally or at a distance. Can anyone really believe in it without feeling embarrassed? Or are they just in a mocking mood happily collecting money with conveniently little effort?
Significant xkcd
https://xkcd.com/882/
@Olle Kjellin
My theory: these people train themselves to feel things that aren’t actually there, most notably the imaginary ‘energy field’ or ‘biofield’ that they believe permeates every living thing, and extends for some distance beyond the physical body. The way that this works is much like the rubber hand illusion.
Once these people have trained themselves to elicit the illusion of a tangible ‘energy field’ at a short distance from a living organism, there is really no reason why they couldn’t evoke the same sensations when thinking about an organism at a far greater distance.
Of course you would have to be rather gullible (or at best: blinded by belief) to think that this is in any way connected to the real world, but then again, personal experience can be very convincing, especially when accompanied by particular sensations. I spoke to a few of these people, and they appear to be genuine believers, much like strongly religious people.
I am very frightened.
Given Masters of Reiki at grade II can transmit their ‘energy’ at distances – even to animals – what if their sense of direction is just off a bit?
Could harm, even cancer, be caused by their energies?
How do we know?
If any Reiki therapist claims there are no side effects, how do they know?
And if they do not, have no evidence of effects/side effects, they are frauds and should be treated as such.
Why do some NHS institutions tollerate Reiki being offered in NHS institutions and to NHS patients?
Is there a conspiracy to defraud?
We should be told.