depression
The rapid expansion of mindfulness research has generated both enthusiasm and controversy regarding its actual clinical value. While meditation is often regarded as the central mechanism of mindfulness-based interventions, other components such as psychoeducation and informal practice may play an equally significant role in improving mental health outcomes.
This critical review examined the relative contributions of these elements to the therapeutic impact of mindfulness and clarifies the extent to which its effects are comparable to established treatments, particularly Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).
Evidence from meta-analyses and high-quality trials indicated that mindfulness programs achieve moderate efficacy in reducing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress, but effect sizes are frequently inflated by the methodological limitations of the studies. Importantly, cognitive and emotional regulation skills, especially acceptance and non-judgment, appear to sustain long-term benefits more consistently than meditation alone.
The authors point out that high-quality studies tend to report smaller effect sizes for mindfulness meditation compared to studies with methodological limitations. This suggests that the benefits of it may have been overestimated in less robust research. However, even in well-controlled trials, meditation has shown moderate effects in reducing stress and anxiety, highlighting its potential therapeutic value while reinforcing the need for continued scrutiny of its long-term impact and mechanisms of action.
Mindfulness meditation is often regarded as the central component of mindfulness programs, yet its role should be critically examined in relation to other key elements. While some studies highlight meditation as a primary mechanism for short-term reductions in stress and anxiety, others suggest that cognitive and behavioral learning processes may play an equally or even more significant role in sustaining long-term benefits. This raises important questions about whether meditation alone is sufficient to drive mindfulness-related improvements or if its effects are dependent on complementary psychoeducational and cognitive strategies.
The authors concluded that the primary challenge in mindfulness-based interventions is determining which aspects are responsible for contributing to their effectiveness, and what mechanisms may be at work. While meditative practice, often associated with mindfulness training and stress reduction, has demonstrated benefits in alleviating symptoms of anxiety and depression, a critical question remains: is meditation alone sufficient to sustain these effects over time, or are additional cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors necessary? Understanding whether the long-term benefits of mindfulness stem from mindfulness meditation alone, or also from additional contributions from complementary psychological processes, is essential for refining its clinical applications and preventing its overgeneralization as a universal remedy.
Recent high-quality evidence continues to support the moderate but consistent clinical efficacy of MBIs across populations and settings. However, these benefits appear to depend not only on meditation but also on psychoeducational and cognitive–behavioral elements that promote acceptance, non-judgment, and emotional regulation. Such skills have shown comparable or even greater contributions to long-term mental health outcomes than formal meditation practice alone.
Although mindfulness-based interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing anxiety and depression, direct comparisons with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) remain limited. Evidence from recent meta-analyses suggests that both approaches may yield comparable therapeutic outcomes, possibly through shared mechanisms involving cognitive restructuring and self-regulation. In contrast, findings on Transcendental Meditation (TM) are more heterogeneous and should be interpreted with caution, as TM differs conceptually and methodologically from mindfulness-based approaches. Nonetheless, further well-controlled, longitudinal research is required to clarify whether sustained meditation practice provides additional or distinct long-term advantages.
The psychoeducational components of mindfulness, which encourage present-moment awareness and a non-judgmental attitude, may play a significant role in reducing rumination—a core mechanism underlying anxiety and depression. This raises the question of whether long-term symptom improvement is primarily driven by the internalization of these cognitive and emotional strategies rather than by meditation itself.
Overall, mindfulness-based interventions show moderate clinical efficacy, with outcomes highly dependent on their specific components—meditation, psychoeducation, and informal practice. Cognitive and emotional regulation skills such as acceptance and non-judgment may be the most critical drivers of long-term well-being. Identifying how these elements interact to sustain psychological benefits is key for optimizing intervention design and ensuring mindfulness remains a scientifically grounded and contextually adaptable therapeutic tool.
I have often commented on what I see as the current hype around mindfulness. To me, the evidence suggests that it is not nearly as effective as its proponents are trying to make it out to be. Much of the observed outcomes are due to expectation and conditioning, in other words, they are caused by a placebo response. Yet, I think the authors of this review have a point, even though they seem not very good at making it concisely.
Saffron, the stigmas of Crocus sativus L., has been used extensively in traditional herbal medicine. Since several years, the research interest in this plant is intense. Thus numerous clinical trials of saffron supplements (in contrast to the spice, supplements are affordable [they use different parts of the plant]) have been published. Almost all of them yield positive results (this invariably makes me suspicious!).
The purpose of this 2-arm, 12-wk, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to examine the effects of supplementation with a saffron extract (Affron) on mood and sleep in adults experiencing subclinical depressive symptoms. 202 adults aged 18-70 with depressive symptoms were supplemented with either 28 mg saffron daily or a placebo. Outcome measures included the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale – 21, Sleep Disturbance and Sleep-Related Impairment Scale, World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Scale, and daily depression, stress, and anxiety ratings.
On the primary outcome measure, compared to the placebo, saffron was associated with greater improvements in the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale – 21 depression score (β: -2.92 points; 95% confidence interval: -5.13, -0.71 points; Cohen’s d = 0.39). 72% of participants in the saffron group achieved a clinically significant change (a reduction of ≥ 7 points) compared to 54.3% of participants in the placebo group (P = 0.010). However, in the other secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of between-group differences. In exploratory analyses across various strata and assumptions, improvements in sleep disturbances (β: -2.72 points; 95% confidence interval: -4.99, -0.46 points; Cohen’s d = 0.44) were identified in a subset of participants with a greater severity of sleep disturbance. There were no serious adverse reactions reported.
The authors concluded that this study, the largest conducted to date on saffron, provides evidence supporting the beneficial effects of 3 mo of saffron supplementation on depressive symptoms in adults. Large placebo responses were evident in this study, which require consideration in future trials.
As mentioned above, the body of evidence suggesting that saffron is effective for a surprisingly wide range of conditions is impressive. I looked with some skepticism at some of these studies and have to say that many are of decent or even good scientific quality.
Could it be that we have in saffron a plant-based treatment that shows real promise?
WATCH THIS SPACE!
Acupuncture is considered an effective complementary therapy for major depressive disorder (MDD), yet current findings remain inconsistent, and its overall quality is uncertain. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes the existing evidence on acupuncture for MDD, providing an overview of the current research, identifying gaps and limitations in the literature, and offering guidance for future research.
A Chinese team of researchers systematically searched eight electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CDSR, CENTRAL, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and SinoMed) and seven guideline repositories (Trip, AHRQ, NICE, NZGG, GIN, CMACPG, and NHMRC) from inception to November 15, 2024, for RCTs, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture for major depressive disorder. Eligibility criteria were defined according to the PICOS framework. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and AMSTAR-2 for systematic reviews (SRs). Key evidence and recommendations were synthesized and presented in tables and figures.
A total of 374 studies were identified, including 330 RCTs, 35 SRs, and 9 clinical guidelines. Among these studies, 307 (93.03%) were published in Chinese and 23 (6.97%) in English. The RCTs generally involved small sample sizes (50 to 100 participants). The primary intervention was acupuncture combined with antidepressant medication (50%), while 79.39% of studies used antidepressants as the main control. Nearly all studies (97.88%) used changes in depression severity as the primary outcome, although the risk of bias was unclear in 80.3% of cases.
Of the SRs, 97.14% reported positive findings favoring acupuncture’s potential benefits, but 74.29% were rated as very low in methodological quality, lacking thorough bias assessments. Among the two acupuncture-specific guidelines and seven broader guidelines, recommendations for acupuncture in managing MDD varied considerably.
The authors concluded that the evidence from RCTs, SRs, and clinical guidelines suggests that acupuncture may reduce depressive symptom severity and provide additional benefits for patients with comorbid anxiety, sleep disturbances, or somatic symptoms, particularly when used as an adjunctive therapy. However, these findings are mainly based on small-scale trials with methodological limitations, and most guidelines recommend acupuncture only as a third-line complementary option. Further large, high-quality RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence base and inform future guideline development.
For the following reasons, the conclusions are, in my opinion, wrong:
- Almost all RCTs came from China (we have discussed the untrustworthiness of these trials many times previously, e.g. here or here).
- Almost all studies were methodologically flawed.
Therefore, I suggest a more accurate conclusion based on the available data:
The evidence from RCTs, SRs, and clinical guidelines is unreliable due to the poor quality of the available data. Until reliable evidence is available, acupuncture is not a recommendable therapy for MDD, a life-threatening condition.
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of Reiki applied to women in the postmenopausal period on menopausal symptoms and depression levels.
This randomized trial was conducted with postmenopausal women registered in a family health center. The sample of the study consisted of 82 women (Reiki=41, control=41). While four sessions of Reiki were applied to the women in the Reiki group, once a week for 4 weeks. All participants in the control group received routine care provided by health professionals at the family health center. The Menopause Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were used to collect data. The data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0, with independent and dependent t-tests, and effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. The analysis was conducted using the per-protocol approach, where only participants who fully completed the intervention and adhered to the protocol were included in the analysis.
The mean scores of menopausal complaints (17.31 vs. 21.73; p<0.01), somato-vegetative complaints (2.70 vs. 3.85; p<0.01), and psychological complaints (10.07 vs. 12.60; p<0.05) were significantly reduced in the Reiki group compared to the control group. Similarly, the mean score of depression (9.63 vs. 15.90; p<0.001) was significantly decreased in the Reiki group compared to the control group.
The authors concluded that Reiki practice significantly reduced menopausal symptoms and depression levels in postmenopausal women. These findings suggest that Reiki may be an effective complementary treatment option for women going through menopause.
The study was designed to compare Reiki plus standard care with standard care alone. Thus it followed the infamous A+B versus B design about which I have written repeatedly. It is popular amongst researchers of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) because it invariably produces positive results, even if the tested therapy is a mere placebo.
How come?
Simple, because the placebo effect of most SCAMs can be expected to be sizable and is not controlled by this design. If Reiki itself is ineffective, i.e. not effective beyond placebo [which is true], it would in such a study still produce a positive outcome that makes it look like an effective therapy. In other words, the A+B versus B design is guaranteed to generate a positive result regardless of the uselessness of the tested treatment.
And now, I hope, you understand why so many SCAM researchers choose to adopt the A+B versus B design. Sadly, this will not stop SCAM researchers to continue using it with a view of misleading the public.
Cancer patients frequently experience both physical and psychological challenges, including chronic pain and depression. While conventional treatments primarily often rely on pharmacological interventions, complementary approaches such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) do not and are claimed to help alleviate both physical and psychological distress.
This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effects of EFT on pain and depression in individuals with cancer. It was conducted in the oncology ward of a high-capacity hospital in eastern Turkey between December 2023 and March 2024. Seventy cancer patients were randomly assigned to either the EFT group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 35). The EFT group received four structured 30-min sessions over two weeks, led by a certified EFT practitioner, with symptom reassessment after each session. The control group received routine care. Data were collected using a Participant Information Form, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) before and after the intervention.
The results show that VAS scores in the EFT group significantly decreased from 4.82 ± 2.47 to 2.44 ± 1.97 (p < 0.05), whereas the control group showed a smaller reduction from 5.36 ± 2.42 to 4.25 ± 2.75 (p > 0.05). BDI scores in the EFT group improved significantly, decreasing from 31.44 ± 17.68 to 18.44 ± 7.0 (p < 0.05), while the control group’s scores increased from 27.94 ± 16.26 to 31.42 ± 12.65 (p > 0.05).
The authors conclused that these findings suggest that EFT was effective in significantly reducing both pain and depression levels in cancer patients.
We have encountered the EFT several times before, e.g.:
- Emotional Freedom Technique, a combination of two types of BS
- Emotional Freedom Techniques: More ‘alternative facts’ from ‘The Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine’
- Beware of the ‘new-born holists’
- Overcome the trauma of war with unproven treatments?
I had assumed it to be pure BS – but does this new study prove my assumption wrong?
Not really!
The trial is quite simply false-positive. The reason lies in the often-discussed A+B versus B design. It makes sure that even dubious BS like the EFT generates a positive result when tested in a seemingly rigorous study.
In view of this, let me re-phrase the conclusions by simplt adding two words:
these findings do not suggest that EFT was effective in significantly reducing both pain and depression levels in cancer patients.
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of Reiki applied to women in the postmenopausal period on menopausal symptoms and depression levels.
This randomized controlled study was conducted with postmenopausal women registered in a family health center. The sample of the study consisted of 82 women (Reiki=41, control=41). While four sessions of Reiki were applied to the women in the Reiki group, once a week for 4 weeks, all participants in the control group received routine care provided by health professionals at the family health center. The Menopause Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were used to collect data. The data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0, with independent and dependent t-tests, and effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. The analysis was conducted using the per-protocol approach, where only participants who fully completed the intervention and adhered to the protocol were included in the analysis.
The mean scores of menopausal complaints (17.31 vs. 21.73; p<0.01), somato-vegetative complaints (2.70 vs. 3.85; p<0.01), and psychological complaints (10.07 vs. 12.60; p<0.05) were significantly reduced in the Reiki group compared to the control group. Similarly, the mean score of depression (9.63 vs. 15.90; p<0.001) was significantly decreased in the Reiki group compared to the control group.
The authors concluded that Reiki practice significantly reduced menopausal symptoms and depression levels in postmenopausal women. These findings suggest that Reiki may be an effective complementary treatment option for women going through menopause.
I beg to differ!
The study was designed along the A+B versus B design which we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog. It does not control for placebo effects which means it generates positive results without fail, even for the most ineffective therapies.
In view of this, I should re-write the conclusions as follows:
Placebo effects significantly reduce menopausal symptoms and depression levels in postmenopausal women. These findings do not suggest that Reiki may be an effective complementary treatment option for women going through menopause.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), America’s anti-vaxer in-chief, famously claimed his brain has been eaten by a worm. While this assumption is as ridiculous as the man himself, the actions and delusions of RFK Jr. seem almost to confirm that something fundamental must be wrong with his intellectual abilities.
Recently he said that he will be working to get cell phones out of schools. “Cell phones produce electric magnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it’s around them all day … It’s also been shown to cause cellular damage and even cancer … Cell phone use and social media use on the cell phone has been directly connected with depression, poor performance in schools, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse … The states that are doing this have found that it is a much healthier environment when kids are not using cell phones in schools.”
There are two separate issues here:
- Limiting children’s use of cell phones might be – for several (not health-related) reasons – a reasonable idea.
- The assumption that cell phones cause the type of damage that RFK Jr. claimed is nonsense.
There is plenty of evidence on the subject, some more reliable than others. The most reliable data do not support what RFK Jr. claims. Here are a few systematic reviews on the subject:
A recent systematic review included 63 aetiological articles, published between 1994 and 2022, with participants from 22 countries, reporting on 119 different E-O pairs. RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones (ever or regular use vs no or non-regular use) was not associated with an increased risk of glioma [meta-estimate of the relative risk (mRR) = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.89-1.13), meningioma (mRR = 0.92, 95 % CI = 0.82-1.02), acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.85-1.24), pituitary tumours (mRR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.61-1.06), salivary gland tumours (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.06), or paediatric (children, adolescents and young adults) brain tumours (mRR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.51), with variable degree of across-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %-62 %). There was no observable increase in mRRs for the most investigated neoplasms (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma) with increasing time since start (TSS) use of mobile phones, cumulative call time (CCT), or cumulative number of calls (CNC). Cordless phone use was not significantly associated with risks of glioma [mRR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.46; I2 = 74 %) meningioma, (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.70-1.18; I2 = 59 %), or acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 0.83-1.61; I2 = 63 %). Exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations) was not associated with childhood leukaemia or paediatric brain tumour risks, independently of the level of the modelled RF exposure. Glioma risk was not significantly increased following occupational RF exposure (ever vs never), and no differences were detected between increasing categories of modelled cumulative exposure levels.
Another recent systematic review included 5 studies that reported analyses of data from 4 cohorts with 4639 participants consisting of 2808 adults and 1831 children across three countries (Australia, Singapore and Switzerland) conducted between 2006 and 2017. The main source of RF-EMF exposure was mobile (cell) phone use measured as calls per week or minutes per day. For mobile phone use in children, two studies (615 participants) that compared an increase in mobile phone use to a decrease or no change were included in meta-analyses. Learning and memory. There was little effect on accuracy (mean difference, MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) or response time (MD -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02) on the one-back memory task; and accuracy (MD -0.02; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.00) or response time (MD -0.01; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.03) on the one card learning task (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). Executive function. There was little to no effect on the Stroop test for the time ratio ((B-A)/A) response (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, very low certainty) or the time ratio ((D-C)/C) response (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05, very low certainty), with both tests measuring susceptibility to interference effects. Complex attention. There was little to no effect on detection task accuracy (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08), or response time (MD 0.02;95% CI 0.01 to 0.03), and little to no effect on identification task accuracy (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05) or response time (MD 0.00;95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). No other cognitive domains were investigated in children. A single study among elderly people provided very low certainty evidence that more frequent mobile phone use may have little to no effect on the odds of a decline in global cognitive function (odds ratio, OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58, 649 participants) or a decline in executive function (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.05, 146 participants), and may lead to a small, probably unimportant, reduction in the odds of a decline in complex attention (OR 0.67;95%CI 0.27 to 1.68, 159 participants) and a decline in learning and memory (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.99, 159 participants). An exposure-response relationship was not identified for any of the cognitive outcomes.
A 2022 systematic review concluded that the body of evidence allows no final conclusion on the question whether exposure to RF EMF from mobile communication devices poses a particular risk to children and adolescents.
That RFK Jr. spouts BS almost every time he opens his mouth should be an embarrassment to all US citizens. For the rest of the world, it is more than that. In fact, it is fast becoming a serious concern: sooner or later, his insane delusions will affect public health on a global scale!
- pain,
- anxiety,
- fatigue,
- feelings (eg, happy, calm)
on 0- to 10-point numeric rating scales. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests.
- What on earth is a ‘mixed-method, feasibility, pilot study’? A hallmark of pseudo-researchers seems to be that they think they can invent their own terminology.
- There is no objective, validated outcome measure.
- The conclusion that ‘Reiki is feasible‘ has been known and does not need to be tested any longer.
- The conclusion that ‘Reiki improved positive emotions and feelings and decreased negative measures’ is false. As there was no control group, these improvements might have been caused by a whole lot of other things than Reiki – for instance, the extra attention, placebo effects, regression towards the mean or social desirability.
- The conclusion that ‘implementing Reiki in clinical practice should be further explored to improve mental health and well-being’ is therefore not based on the data provided. In fact, as Reiki is an implausible esoteric nonsense, it is a promotion of wasting resources on utter BS.
Does it matter?
Why not let pseudo-scientists do what they do best: PSEUDO-SCIENCE?
I think it matters because:
- Respectable institutions like the Mayo Clinic should not allow its reputation being destroyed by quackery.
- The public should not be misled by charlatans.
- Patients suffering from mental health problems deserve better.
- Resources should not be wasted on pseudo-research.
- ‘Academic journals like ‘Glob Adv Integr Med Health’ have a responsibility for what they publish.
- ‘The ‘Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health‘ that seems to be behind this particular journal claim to be “the world’s most comprehensive community for advancing the practice of whole health, with leading expertise in research, clinical care, and education. By consolidating the top institutions in the integrative medicine space, all working in unison with a common goal, the Academic Consortium is the premier organizational home for champions of whole health. Together with over 86 highly esteemed member institutions from the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico, our collective vision is to transform the healthcare system by promoting integrative medicine and health for all.” In view of the above, such statements are a mockery of the truth.
Reflexology (originally called ‘zone therapy’ by its inventor) is a manual technique where pressure is applied to the sole of the patient’s foot (and sometimes also other areas such as the hands or ears). It must be differentiated from a simple foot massage that is agreeable but makes no therapeutic claims beyond relaxation. Reflexology is said to have its roots in ancient cultures. Its current popularity goes back to the US doctor William Fitzgerald (1872–1942) who did some research in the early 1900s and thought to have discovered that the human body is divided into 10 zones each of which is represented on the sole of the foot.
Reflexologists thus drew maps of the sole of the foot where all the body’s organs are depicted. Numerous such maps have been published and, embarrassingly, they do not all agree with each other as to the location of our organs on the sole of our feet. By massaging specific zones which are assumed to be connected to specific organs, reflexologists believe to positively influence the function of these organs. Reflexology is mostly used as a therapy, but some therapists also claim they can diagnose health problems through feeling tender or gritty areas on the sole of the foot which, they claim, correspond to specific organs.
The assumptions made by reflexologists contradict our current knowledge of anatomy and physiology and are thus not biologically plausible. Reflexology has been submitted to clinical trials in numerous different conditions. A systematic review concluded that “the best clinical evidence does not demonstrate convincingly reflexology to be an effective treatment for any medical condition.” Recent review tend to be more positive suggestin, for instance, that foot reflexology produced significant improvements in sleep disturbances , or that reflexology may provide additional nonpharmacotherapy intervention for adults suffering from depression, anxiety, or sleep disturbance. However, due to the poor quality of most of the primary studies, such statements must be interpreted with caution.
[references see my book]
This randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of foot reflexology on the sexual function of lactating women. It was conducted in selected health centers of Isfahan in 2022 on 64 lactating women (32 women in each group of intervention and control). The samples were selected using the convenience sampling method and were randomly divided into two groups using a random number table. Each participant in the intervention group received 10 sessions of foot reflexology, and each session lasted for 50 minutes (25 minutes for each foot) and was held every three days. The female sexual function index (FSFI) questionnaire was completed by all participants before the intervention and four weeks after the end of the treatment period. The control group received routine care and completed the questionnaire before the intervention and 9 weeks later. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and independent/paired t-tests.
Results showed that the subjects of the two groups were homogeneous in demographic and fertility characteristics at the beginning of the study. The total mean score of sexual function in the intervention group was 20.36 ± 4.16 before the intervention and 28.05 ± 2.89 after the intervention. In the control group, this score was 20.51 ± 3.75 before the intervention and 20.54 ± 3.71 nine weeks after it. A comparison of the total mean score of sexual function and dimensions showed a significant difference between the two groups four weeks after the intervention (p <0.001). In the intervention group, significant changes were observed in the total mean score of sexual function and its dimensions four weeks after the intervention compared to before the intervention. However, in the control group, there were no significant changes in this score and its dimensions nine weeks later compared to before the intervention.
The authors concluded that lactating women in the two groups did not have a desirable sexual function before the intervention. However, foot reflexology in the present study could effectively improve the sexual function of women in the reflexology group. Therefore, it is recommended to employ foot reflexology therapy in health centers to help lactating women restore their sexual function.
This conclusion might hold if we assume that firstly reflexology was a plausibe therapy (which it is not, see above) and secondly postulated that patient-blinding and placebo effects (features that the present trial did not have) are unimportant in such a study. Yet, the latter assumption cannot be true. A total of 500 minutes of a foot massage must surely prompt a placebo response! Therefore, the notion that the reflexology treatment caused the observed outcomes is unwarranted – almost certainly the effects were mainly due to placebo.
So, what we have here is a hugely over-optimistic conclusion, something we all long got used to in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But far worse, in my view, is the fact that the authors do not even leave it at that. They also issue a gerneral and far-reaching recommendation for foot reflexology as a means for restoring sexual function to lactating women.
This is not just poor science, it is stupid and irresponsible!
- spiritual healing alongside usual care (n = 14);
- or usual care alone (n = 14).
The healing sessions were highly individualized. The healer positioned her hands over various areas of the client’s body (head, chest, knee, hip, and feet) intending to adjust the energy flow within the client. Outcomes were measured by changes in the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care (BDI) scores pre-and post-intervention. Participants’ experiences with spiritual healing were explored through a process evaluation.
- A pilot study is for testing the feasibility and not for calculating outcomes.
- In any case, this was not a pilot study but an effectiveness trial that failed because of recruitment difficulties.
- As it followed the infamous ‘A+B versus B’ design that produces a positive result even for a placebo treatment, the study (if we disregard the small sample size and take its findings seriously) merely shows that placebo can be effective.
- The conclusion is therefore wrong and should read: spiritual healing causes a placebo response in individuals who suffer from moderate depression.
- The National Research Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Community Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway which seems to be the main institution responsible for this nonsense should be questioned how they justify spending money and time on such pseudoscience.
