Quick Nurse, Hand me the nothing!

The Hamster is flying off to warmer climes tomorrow and will be away from the web for a whole week! But before I go off chasing lizards and getting drunk in the sun I thought I’d briefly share some stuff on Homeopathy.

I was trying to avoid it- it’s been done to death elsewhere- but you know what? It’s just too mental to ignore.

Homeopaths are quacks. There’s no ifs or buts here- they are quacks. Homeopathy does not work and can not be shown to have efficacy beyond that of a placebo. In fact it has sometimes performed WORSE than a placebo!

Now, I am not going to say that all homeopaths are lying shysters, because they’re probably not. Like our friend Janice, they have an uncritical belief, based on faith and cherry-picking data, in the efficacy of their bullshit. They probably, with a few exceptions, do really care about people getting better from illness- and they’ll give you much more time than your local GP is able to and a much more personalised approach- but they are deluding themselves and by extention they are deluding, mostly unintentionally, their clients.

Most people when they hear the ‘theory’ behind homeopathy quite rightly laugh. Because it’s hilarious- it sounds like the kind of ideas a child would have about the universe- but it’s not always funny.

In South Africa it’s not funny. When homeopaths advise people with HIV or AIDS to stop taking anti-retro virals and start taking sugar pills it becomes very serious. Homeopaths can kill you! Even though there’s nothing in their pills and potions.

So what’s the ‘theory’?

Well first, they believe in the idea of like causes like. This is a version of sympathetic magic though you’ll never hear that term used by a homeopath, I’ll wager! So, for example, if you are having trouble sleeping a homeopath will look for a chemical (they won’t use that word either because they seem to think it means synthetic, harmful substance. Homeopaths apparently can’t use dictionaries!) that causes sleeplessness. That’s right; a substance that will, on average, cause your symptoms will be chosen to treat your symptoms. Read that again.

"You're fucking kidding me, right?"

Now, after you’ve facepalmed, you might think “Isn’t that rather stupid and dangerous?”

Good question, thank you for asking.

If I were to recommend mercury for mercury poisoning you’d probably think that my rodent brain had been frazzled! But don’t worry, yet. You’re [Edit due to grammar fail! Yes, I teach English! The shame!] Your homeopathic remedy (see bottom of page for an interesting fact about their use of that word!) won’t harm you directly because of the next part of their ‘theory’.

Homeopaths dilute their active ingredients to such a degree that there is no active ingredient in the finished product.  Now if you’ve ever attended a school you’ll have probably already concluded that that’s ridiculous, but it gets funnier.

To explain how this works homeopaths invoke magic.  Water, they claim, has memory. Shhh! Stop giggling! It remembers the active ingredient and the more it is diluted the more active and potent it becomes. But only if you bang the diluted stuff at each stage of the dilution! By shaking and banging the water somehow knows to memorize the ingredient and increase its potency.

Chemists will be wondering now how the fuck these people have the brains to even get up in the morning!

Like with many alternative ‘medicines’, evidence of these ‘theories’ would gain the experimenters a lovely Nobel prize.  Actually two! One in chemistry and one in physics!

Number of homeopaths with a Nobel prize : 0

There have actually been a few studies and trials that have shown mildly positive results for homeopathy.  But when others have looked at these they’ve found them to be methodologically flawed and very unscientific. When replicated the result is failure to show any effect above placebo.

Meta-analyses (that is taking all the research that hasn’t been showed to be unscientific and collating all the results) show that Homeopathy is not more effective than placebo- and as I said above- has sometimes been less effective than placebo.

Some homeoquacks now try to to invoke the placebo effect as evidence that their lunacy works- which shows just how little they understand basic scientific principles and just how ethical they can be. This is equivalent to saying “Our products are placebos! But hey, we don’t mind misleading our patients!”

Back in February  of 2010 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee came to the following conclusion:

… the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.

The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.

The Committee concluded – given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy – that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified.

In the Committee’s view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice – which the Government claims is very important – as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.

Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.

And:

We conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The funding of homeopathic hospitals – hospitals that specialise in the administration of placebos – should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf

So what’s inspired me to write about homepathy today?

This wonderful video.

If any homeopaths or organisations  involved in this quackery are reading, I’d like to say this:

Homeopathy does not work and is not medicine. Whatever your motives, there’s a good chance that you are indirectly harming people by directing them away from evidence based medicine. Even if you advise your patients to continue seeing real doctors, your quackery dilutes (is that irony?) their understanding of how disease and treatment actually operate in the real, sane world.

From the Society of Homeoquackspaths comes this (square brackets insertion mine):

 What can homeopathy help?

Homeopaths often see patients with long-term, chronic problems, many of which have failed to respond to conventional medicine. As a system of medicine, homeopathy is aimed at treating the person, rather than the disease diagnosis [nobody treats a diagnosis!], and as such can be considered in almost any ill health, where tissue has not been irrevocably damaged.

Most people visit a homeopath with a diagnosis from their doctor, and patients are encouraged to keep their medical practitioners informed as treatment progresses. Some people see a homeopath because they have side effects from conventional drugs, and others because conventional tests have failed to find the cause of their problem.

Which seems to be a very long-winded way of not answering the question. Perhaps because they know people like me are ready with the fishbarrel plugin to report you to Trading Standards or the ASA as soon as you return to making unsubstantiated medical claims. The people who carefully word these websites and the pro-quackeopathy literature should be ashamed of themselves.

About the term Remedy:

In homeopathy, the term remedy  refers to a substance which has been prepared with a particular procedure of dilution etc.

They claim not to be using the  accepted definition of the word which means “a medicine or therapy that cures disease or relieves pain”. Do they explain this to their patients? Probably not. I’ll let you come to your own conclusions as to how honest or dishonest this is.

With thanks to Ben Goldacre,  Carrie, JREF, and Orac.

Some interesting blogs/websites germane to homeopathy

Edit: added 15.28 GMT on Februay 26 2012: http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/memory-of-water-issue-of-homeopathy-critical-resources/

http://thegearheadskeptic.com/2011/02/17/homeopathy-challenged-around-the-world/

http://www.badscience.net/category/complementary-medicine/homeopathy/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004020583_miracle18m2.html

http://www.1023.org.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/about-homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy/

Identity Fraud: Now powered by Reiki

My Facebook profile has been 100% public for 11 months now. It was a bit of an experiment (not a very scientific one; that wasn’t the intent) to see what could go wrong. Being unable to work for a while it was greeat to not have to worry about employers (or potential employers) for a while.

Of course, it was a bit of a silly risk- especially as much of the stuff that was public will still appear on a Google search for a very long time.

I expected that at some point I would piss off some fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or a Bedroom Atheist (You know the type: about 14 years old, no prospects of ever getting laid, multiple sock accounts on YouTube, can’t distinguish between not liking the tenets of Islam and being a racist shit-head).

And since I wrote about a certain organisation they have been trying to cyber-stalk me. I won’t say who because I don’t have conclusive proof and they’ve been so bad at it that I’ve actually had to throw them clues as to my real identity! (Google, you fucking donkey! Google!) So I have been expecting an attack of some kind from the Woo Woo world.

But I didn’t really expect it to come from a Reiki nut.

Let’s be clear, though: Janice (see previous two posts) is not a suspect. I suppose it could be her but although she is clearly bat-shit crazy she also seems to be well meaning and not at all vengeful.

But somebody doesn’t like Reiki being critiqued and they hacked me.

Badly.

Really badly.

At least it wasn't in CAPS with a million exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they wanted people to de-friend me they could have done it themselves whilst they had accesss to my account.

Maybe the magic healing magnetism [citation required]that flows through their hands effected their PC.

If you are an idiot  Reiki believer, why not try putting your comments in the box at the bottom instead of illegally acccessing my account on FB? All you need do is show me a couple of pieces of actual evidence (that has been designed, controlled and executed according to Popperian scientific methodology) and I’ll happily do a post on how wrong I’ve been on Reiki. You may want to read my post “Reiki is Science[citiation needed]” first to make sure you’re not just repeating the crap Janice spouted though.

Go on then, Reiki Masters: Come at me!

All this makes me think of the genius of Tim Minchin :

Touching people up and calling it healing.

Thanks to Beau Nafyde for the title!

NA NA NA NA NA NA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!NA NA NA NA NA!

Yesterday I received some spamming from a reiki practitioner.  See previous blog for details.

Of course I expected her to come back at me with reasons why my little debunking of her “evidence” was wrong. But that’s not exactly what I got.

This morning she began messaging me again. She makes creationist s look logical! Here’s this mornings thread.

You’ll notice her picture looks a little strange. This is because she has now blocked me. Butthurt much, Janice?

Blocked! By a spammer! Oh the humanity!

…

“Reiki is science” [citation needed]

This is gonna be a long one (that’s what SHE said!)

If you were walking through Lancaster this afternoon you may have heard the sound of somebody laughing so loudly that it drowned out the traffic on King St. You may have heard the high pitch yowl of “please! Stop! No more! My ribs hurrrrrrt!!

Yup. That was me. What amazing joke caused this uncharacteristic mirth?

A double blind trial testing the efficacy of Reiki on- I’m not making this up- PLANTS!

I received an unsolicited message about Reiki on facebook. It wasn’t totally random as I have commented on a thread that this spammer once commented on. Obviously she thought that my ignorance about Reiki needed to be dealt with.

My first response was to ask her for evidence and to stop spamming me- a request I later retracted as I can’t bring myself to ask somebody to stop sending me comedy gold.

Here is the conversation in full (we’ll deal with the massive amount of “scientific proof” for Reiki afterwards…)

I have blocked out the name of the Reiki practitioner who sent me this as I was a bit worried about the ThunderfOOt effect. ThunderfOOt is Youtube atheist. Most of his videos attack some fundie or other. Unfortunately his fans tend to be a bunch of 12 year old idiots [citation needed]who then go and spam the pages of Fundies with insults, threats and all kinds of crap. I only have a few readers so far but this stuff stays on the net for a long time. As it was, she willingly put her name in one of the posts so she is happy to have her name on here. She may even get some clients from it.

I would ask you not to spam her with your comments. If you can’t abide by that request then be respectful.

The list of research into Reiki at http://www.aetw.org/reiki_research.html is legendary. Every sceptic has been sent it at some point. It’s a pretty long list. That must mean there’s lots of scientific evidence.  Or scientific “proof” as she calls it.

Lets have a look shall we.

Alandydy, P. (BSN, RN,,CNOR), Alandydy, K . (BA) [1999] Using Reiki to support surgical patients. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. Apr; vol 13, no 4, pp 89-91. Not research but opinion.

Algarin, R. [1995] Using Reiki as a harm reduction tool and as a stress management technique for participants and self.Northeast Conference: Drugs, Sex and Harm Reducation (sic)Conference Syllabus, [1995], Harm Reduction Coalition and the Drug Policy Foundation, the ACLU AIDS Project and the CityUniversity of New York. Not a journal. Not research.

A RK, Kurup PA. [2003] Changes in the isoprenoid pathway with transcendental meditation and Reiki healing practices in seizure disorder. (Department of Neurology, Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum 695-003, Kerala, India). in Neurology India. 2003 Jun; vol 51, no2, pp211-4. An evaluation of- ahem!- data collected BY QUESTIONAIRRE!  Oh, the science!

Author Unknown [?] Autonomic Nervous-System-Changes During Reiki Treatment: A Preliminary Study. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine vol 10, no 6. Yeah; that’s a proper journal! Riiight! Author unknown, ffs!

Author Unknown [1997] Reiki: Tapping the unseen self. International Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol 15, no 9, pp22-23 Ditto.

Author Unknown [1998] Reiki; a balancing therapy. International Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, vol 16, no 2, pp22-23 Ditto

Author Unknown [1999] Remedy Brief: Reiki. This Japanese system of energy healing is used for acute and chronic pain. Natural Health – Massachusetts, Sept, p41 Article not paper.  Not research. Nor peer-reviewed. Anybody seeing a pattern?

Barberis, L., [1996] Reiki: Esoteric therapy or quantum interaction? (Paper presented at:) 3rd European Colloquium on Ethnopharmacolgy – 1st International Conference on Anthropology and History of Health and Disease Not real science. They interviewed people who’d had reiki. It relaxed them. Does anyone deny that it might be relaxing? And it has the word quantum in it. which pretty much confirms that Barberis has no grasp of what quanta are. Or physics. Or biology.

Barberis, L., [1998] Reiki healing: No matter nor energy. Just being. (Presented at:) the 12th Continental members’ Meeting of the Scientific & Medical Network, Cortona, Italy. This is actually a talk about the “research” above and not another piece of “evidence”. These people aren’t disingenuous at all are they?

Barnett, L., & Chambers, M. [1996] Reiki energy medicine: Bringing healing touch into home, hospital, and hospice. Vermont, U.S.A: Healing Arts Press. Not  research and certainly not evidence.

 

Behar, M. [1997] Reiki; bridging tradition & complementary healing techniques. OT Practice; Feb 1997 Not research and not evidence.

 

Brewitt, B., Vittetoe, T., Hartwell, [1997] The efficacy of Reiki hands-on healing: improvements in spleen and nervous system function as quantified by electrodermal screening. Alternative Therapies 1997 July; vol 3 no 4. See title of “journal”. This is technically research but if you employ this kind of methodology in your high school science class expect to flunk. Really, this is the best you can offer?

Brown, F. [1992] Ancient Reiki accepted at a modern American Hospital. The Journal of Awareness. pp 3,16.  See title of “journal” Ooh but it does say pp 3,16 which might mean that it is endorsed by Jesus! Again; not research.

Bucholtz, R. A. [1996] The use of Reiki therapy in the treatment of pain in rheumatoid arthritis. Master’s thesis (unpublished), University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, U.S.A. Unpublished? So why is this on the list? Do you think they’re trying to make this list look longer?

Bullock, M. (RN BSN), [1997] Introduction to Reiki: A complementary therapy for life. Alternative Therapies in Clinical Practice vol 4, no 2, pp41-43 Article. Not a real journal. Will I ever get all this time back? Not research.

Bullock, M. (RN BSN), [1997]Reiki: A complementary therapy for life. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, Jan 1997, Vol 14, no 1, pp31-32  Article. A rewording of previous entry. There are at least 3 different words! Anybody starting to think that this list was made up by a demented Aardvark?

Clark, L. [1988] Reiki in a G.P. Practice: A Report based on 29 patients over the period 5.10.99 – 25.7.01. Unpublished. Unpublished again.

Dressen L. J. & Singg S., [1997] Effects of Reiki on Pain and selected affective and personality variables of chronically ill Patients. Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine, vol 9, no 1, pp51-82 See title of journal. Can only be counted as research if refine the word data to be the plural of anecdote.

Engebretson, J. & Wardell, D. [2002]. Experience of a Reiki Session, Alternative Therapies, vol 8, no 2, pp48-53 See title of both article and journal.

Gallob R. [?] Reiki: a supportive therapy in nursing practice and self-care for nurses. University of Rochester School of Nursing, Loving Touch Center of East Rochester, NY, USA  Article. Lots about anecdotes in it. No research.

Harris, D.(Dip.App.Sc.[Nursing] [UWSN]., B.H.Sc.[Nursing]) [UWSN].,MCN[NSW]., MRCNA.) & James B.H. [?] The Mystery and Meaning of Reiki. Quoted hundreds of  times by Reiki enthusiasts but seemingly this doesn’t actually exist. You’d think there’d be one copy on the internet. Judging by the title this is not research.

Hartwell, B., Brewitt, Dr. B. [1997] The efficacy of Reiki hands-on healing – Improvements in adrenal, spleen and nervous function as quantified by electro-dermal screening. Alternative Therapies Symposium, Florida 1997. Alternative Therapies, vol 3, no 4, p89. See title of “journal” And note that is already listed above but they’ve changed the order of the author’s names. These people are not dishonest though. Honestly they’re not.

Hodsdon, W., Mendenhall, E., Green, R., Kates-Chinnoy,S., Wacker, E, & Zwickey, H. The Effect of Reiki on the Immune System. Helfgott Research Institue at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland, Oregon, USA  Ah, the NCNM. This wonderful piece actually has the conclusion in its assumptions. It’s so circular you could eat your dinner off it.

Kennedy, P. [2001] Working with survivors of torture in Sarajevo with Reiki, Complementary Therapies in Nursing and Midwifery, vol 7, no 4 Article.

Litchfield, G. [1999] Reiki Healing. Journal of Natural Medicine vol 3, no 1, pp3-4 Article. No research.

Mailoo, V.J. [2002] A brief introduction to Reiki. British Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation. May 2002 – vol 9, no 5, pp190-3 Article. No research.

Mailoo, V.J.[2001] Reiki to Reduce Anxiety:A Literature Review.Journal of Chartered Physiotherapists in Mental Healthcare. Jun; 18 pp13-17. Read the  title of the article. Not evidence. Not research. Doesn’t say what Reiki enthusiast think it says. C’mon; read the stuff you cite! I know that peer-reviewed journals (and the pseudo journals) are expensive but google is your friend and there are ways to read this stuff for free. Might not be strictly legal but then academic research should be open access anyway.

Mansour A, Laing G, Nurse J, & Denilkewich A. [1998] The Experience of Reiki: Five Middle-Aged Women in the Midwest, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Therapies; vol 4, no 3, pp211-217 Just read the abstract. It’s hilarious. This is cited in a real paper though. Not in a complimentary manner. Any reiki believers might want to read this:

 http://ons.metapress.com/content/q5720w350863q405/

Mansour, A., Beuche, M., Laing, G., Leis A., & Nurse, J. [1999] A Study to Test the Effectiveness of Placebo Reiki Standardization Procedures Developed for a Planned Reiki Efficacy Study, The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, New York vol 5, no 2, pp153-164. I don’t think many of the people who cite this have read it. I just did. It pretty much says that THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR REIKI (in 2007) but suggests it’s time to start double blind trials with placebo groups and controls. Hey wait…doesn’t that contradict….everything else on here and the people citing this?

Miles P. [2003] Preliminary report on the use of Reiki for HIV-related pain and anxiety. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2003; vol 9 no 2 p36.  Not research. Not evidence

Miles, P. & True, G (PhD).[2003] Reiki: Review of a Biofield Therapy. History, Theory, Practice & Research. Alternative Therapies, Mar/Apr 2003; vol 9, no 2, p67 Article. Admits to the  lack of proper scientific trials. Do you people actually read what you cite?

Milton, G., & Chapman, E., [1995] The benefits of Reiki treatment in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Pathways to healing: Enhancing Life through Complementary Therapies, Conference Proceedings, Sept, 24-25 Canberra: Royal College of Nursing, Australia Not research . Not anything really.

Neklason, Zale T. [1987] The effects of Reiki treatment on telepathy and personality traits. Thesis [MS in Counselling] – Calif. State University, Hayward Telepathy. TELEPATHY! Hey if somebody’s piss-poor thesis can be counted as research does that mean Kent Hovind is a scientist????

Nield-Anderson, L. Ameling, A. [2000] The Empowering Nature of Reiki as a Complementary Therapy. Holistic Nursing Practice, vol 14, no 3, pp21-29 Not research. Not a real journal.

Olson, K. & Hanson, J. [1997] Using Reiki to manage pain: a preliminary report. Cancer Prevention & Control, vol 1, no 2, pp108-115. Cross Cancer Institute. I don’t think you read this one! It says reiki might be relaxing for those who request it. It does not conclude Reiki to be effective as a treatment for cancer but that’s what you may conclude if you hadn’t actually read it!.

Olson K, Hanson J, Michaud M. [?] A phase II trial of Reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients. Faculty of Nursing and International Institute for Qualitative Methodology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Again you have not read this. It does not say what you think it says. Read it!

Pankhurst, J. (RGN, Reiki Master) [?] Thirteen Case Studies to Investigate the Effects of Reiki on the Symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis. The Reiki Research Foundation. Conflict of Interest. Cannot be considered. Unscientific.

Retzlaff N. [1998] Reiki – the gift of love, healing and wholeness; Nursing Matters Feb,1998  Not research.

 

Rivera, C. [1999] Reiki Therapy – A tool for Wellness. Imprint – New York – National Student Nurses Association, vol 46, no 2, pp31-33 Not research.

Robertson, A.L. [?] Pronounced effects of proper Reiki attunement. American Reiki Master Association Newsletter; vol 1, no 5, p6. Not research.

 

Rosentiel, L. [1991] Hypnosis and Reiki. Journal of Hypnotism, Dec; pp8-10 HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh, you’re serious. Not research.

Sabrina, T. [2000] The Science Behind Reiki – What Happens in a Treatment? UK Reiki Federation FFS. Are you even trying? Not research.

Sawyer, J. [1998]Clinical Exemplars; the first Reiki practitioner in our OR. AORN Journal, vol 67, no3, pp674-77 Even AORN don’t seem to cite this.  It’s not on their website and I very much doubt anybody has read it. Cannot be counted, I’m afraid. Besides it’s a report about the presence of one person in an OR. 

Schiller R. Reiki: A Starting Point for Integrative Medicine. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine.2003; vol 9, no 2, pp20-21. Not evidence. Just an article.

Schlitz, M. & Braud, W. [1985] Reiki-Plus natural healing: an ethnographic/experimental study. PSI Research, 1985 Sept/Dec vol 4 no 3, pp100-123. Again cited by 100s of sites but not available. Give me one quote from it and I will believe you’ve read it. Otherwise you can’t use it because nobody knows what it says, what methodology was used or what it concluded.  Even the authors don’t mention this as one of their publications. I wonder why?

Schmehr R. [2003] Case Report: Enhancing the Treatment of HIV/AIDS with Reik (sic) Training and Treatment. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2003; vol 9, no 2, p120. Case report. Enough said. Not evidence. Anecdotes are not data. Jeesh.

 

Tattum A., [1994] Reiki – healing and dealing. Australian Nursing Journal.1994 Aug; vol 2, no 2, p3 Not research.

Thornton, L. [1996] A study of Reiki, an energy field treatment, using Rogers’ science. Rogerian Science News, vol 8 no 3, pp14-15  (and the next three entries)These are four entries for one thing. Dishonest. And it’s an unpublished thesis. Which again means it probably hasn’t actually been read by the people citing it. The one place I found a quote from it dismissed it as “the work of an imbecile” But that was one of those pesky scientists- who also concluded that it ‘s probably a good way to relax.

Thornton, L. [1996] A study of Reiki using Rogers’ science: Part II. Rogerian Science News, vol 8, no 4, pp13-14. See above.

Thorton, L. [1996] A study of Reiki, An energy field treatment, using Rogers’ Science. Rogerian Science News; vol 8, no 1, p3. See above.

Thorton, L. [1996] A study of Reiki using Rogers’ Science, Part II. Rogerian Science News; vol 8, no 1, p4 See above.

University of Michigan.[?] Reiki Technique Study to Control Chronic Pain in Diabetic Neuropathy.The Department of Public Relations & Marketing Communications, University of Michigan The department of what? Really. Are you hoping that nobody ever reads these?

Van Sell, SL. [1996] Reiki: an ancient touch therapy. Reiki News. Feb. 1996, pp57-59 Not research, not evidence.

Wardell D.W.; Engebretson J.[2000] Biological correlates of Reiki Touch healing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol 33, no 4, February 2001, pp439-445 Concludes reiki is useful for relaxation. Nothing more.

Wetzel, W. [1989] Reiki Healing: A Physiologic Perspective. Journal of Holistic Nursing, vol 7, no 1, pp47-54. Not research.

Whelan, K. M. & Wishnia, G. S. [2003] Reiki therapy: The benefits to a nurse/Reiki practitioner. Holistic Nursing Practice, vol 17, no4, pp209 Not about reiki’s efficacy at all.

Whitsitt, T., [1998] Reiki Therapy Journal of Christian Nursing, vol 15; no 1, pp12-13 Not research or evidence.

Witte D. & Dundes L. [2001] Harnessing Life Energy or Wishful Thinking?: Reiki, Placebo Reiki, Meditation and Music, Alternative and Complementary Therapies, vol 7, no 5, pp304-309 Not research.

So, a long list of scientific proof and NOT ONE of these can actually be considerd as evidence let alon proof.

What about the other stuff referred to?

Well in the case of the Greenlotus site it claims to have peer-reviewed evidence. Peer review: I do not think it means what you think it means! It does link to a lovely pdf from  Weil Cornell. The PDF doesn’t mention Reiki. At all. Or alternative medicine. At all.

So out of all the evidence- sorry proof- given not one piece turns out to be evidence- or proof- at all. Not. A. Single. One.

Oh, there’s the book. But this by a doctor who apparently spells holistic with a fucking W! And guess which list of references he cites. Go on guess!

So by now you may be wondering what Reiki is and if there’s ANY evidence for it’s efficacy as anything other than a relaxing massage.  Let’s ask the font of all knowledge: Wikipedia:

Reiki (霊気^?, English pronunciation: /ˈreɪkiː/) is a spiritual practice^[1] developed in 1922 by Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui, which since has been adapted by various teachers of varying traditions. It uses a technique commonly called palm healing or hands on healing as a form ofcomplementary therapy and is sometimes classified as oriental medicine by some professional medical bodies.^[2] Through the use of this technique, practitioners believe that they are transferring universal energy (i.e., reiki) in the form of ki through the palms, which allows for self-healing and a state of equilibrium.^[3]

There are two main branches of Reiki, commonly referred to as Traditional Japanese Reiki and Western Reiki. Though differences can be wide and varied between both branches and traditions, the primary difference is that Westernised forms use systematised hand-placements rather than relying on an intuitive sense of hand-positions (see below), which is commonly used by Japanese Reiki branches. Both branches commonly have a three-tiered hierarchy of degrees, usually referred to as the First, Second, and Master/Teacher level, all of which are associated with different skills and techniques.

The concept of ki underlying Reiki is speculative and there is no scientific evidence that it exists; a 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials concluded that “the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.”^[4] TheAmerican Cancer Society^[5] and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine^[6] have also found that there is no clinical or scientific evidence supporting claims that Reiki is effective in the treatment of any illness.

…..

A 2008 systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the evidence basis of Reiki concluded that efficacy had not been demonstrated for any condition.^[4] Nine studies fit the inclusion criteria; a modified Jadad score of methodological quality was used, taking into account the difficulty of blinding practitioners. Non-randomised studies were excluded, as the potential for intentional or unintentional bias in such studies is large, rendering the results un-interpretable. Overall, the methodological quality of the evidence base was poor as most of the studies suffered from flaws such as small sample size, inadequate study design and poor reporting, with even high-ranking studies failing fully to control for placebo effects.”^[4] As trials with such flaws are known to be likely to show exaggerated treatment effects, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Reiki is effective as sole or adjuvant therapy for any medical condition, or that it has any benefits beyond possible placebo effects.^[4][115] Placebo trials of Reiki are complicated by the difficulty of designing a realistic placebo,^[116] although subsequent trials with adequate placebo or sham controls have shown no difference between the procedure and the control groups.^[4]

A 2009 review in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine found that “the serious methodological and reporting limitations of limited existing Reiki studies preclude a definitive conclusion on its effectiveness.”^[117]

[edit]Safety and effectiveness

Main article: Testing of safety

The American Cancer Society has noted that the research surrounding Reiki has been poorly conducted, and stated: “Available scientific evidence at this time does not support claims that Reiki can help treat cancer or any other illness. More study may help determine to what extent, if at all, it can improve a patient’s sense of well-being.”^[5] Likewise, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicinehas echoed this position, noting that the existence of energy fields in biofield therapies, such as Reiki, “has not yet been scientifically proven.”^[6]

Concerns about safety in Reiki are similar to those of other unproven alternative medicines. Doctors of medicine and allied health care workers believe that patients might avoid clinically proven treatments for serious conditions in favour of unproven alternative medicines.^[118]Reiki practitioners may encourage their clients to consult a medical doctor for serious conditions, stating that Reiki can be used to complement conventional medicine.^[119] Clinical trials have not reported any significant adverse effects from the use of Reiki.^[4]

William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., of The National Council Against Health Fraud, suggests that there “is no evidence that clinical Reiki’s effects are due to anything other than suggestion” or the placebo effect.^[120]

 

Conclusion: As you can see I began the conversation being quite rude and she showed great patience in not responding in kind. I had a peek at her Fb page and she seems to be a thoroughly nice lady.

I am sure she would be devasted to think that Reiki was harmful. But I very much doubt she is going to change her mind. If that was likely then she wouldn’t be a data cherry-picker in the first place.

If you removed all the spiritual clap-trap from Reiki and didn’t advocate it’s use as an alternative to real evidence based medicine then I would have no qualms about recommending Reiki.

But we already have Reiki without all the spiritual clap-trap. They call it a massage!

As medicine? Reiki is pile of steaming badger’s arse-gravy.

There. I fixed it for you!

References

.

http://www.reiki.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki

http://www.aetw.org/reiki_research.html (See contained list)

http://www.noetic.org/

Committee on Doctrine. Guidelines for evaluating reiki as an alternative therapy. U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, March 25, 2009.

Barnes PM and others. Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. National Health Statistic Reports, No. 12, Dec 1-0, 2008.

Experiencing reiki. International Center for Reiki Training Web site, accessed April 18, 2009.

Miles P, True G. Reiki: Review of a biofield therapy history, theory, practice, and research. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 9:62-72, 2003

Lee MS and others. Effects of reiki in clinical practice: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice 62:947-954, 2008.

Rosa L and others. A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA 279:1005-1010, 1998.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/reiki.html

Sarner L. Therapeutic touch: Responses to objections to the JAMA paper. Quackwatch, April 11,1999.

Barrett S. Why NCCAM should stop funding reiki research. NCCAM Watch, June 23, 2009.

ASA adjudication on the International Reiki and Healing Centre, 15 Aug 2001.

ASA adjudication on the International Reiki and Healing Centre, 20 July 2011.

,,,

A guide to Alternative therapies (and how to plagarise another skeptic blog)

I had some big plans for posts recently that have  fallen through. Maybe this is a sign that God hates me. Or that my plans were shit to begin with.

First I was going to do a piece on GMOs and GM foods. I tried to  - as much as is possible-  ignore my pro-science bias and see what I could find out.

I discovered that most of the arguments against GM foods/GMOs (at least the valid ones; most are just bullshit, frankly) are arguments against modern farming practice and not specifically against GMOs. Not that they aren’t framed as arguments against GM, just that they actually aren’t.

And of course, I discovered that evidence means fuck all to these people unless it backs up their own prejudices.

The I discovered that the pro GMO people are exactly the same.  They technically have better science on their side but they seem equally willing to cherry pick, twist or make up evidence.

Oh, and everybody-  pro or anti-  hates Monsanto. I think they’re right to do so.

I also discovered that after a while face-palming can really hurt and that scientific papers on genetics are really, really boring.

What I didn’t find was how to make an interesting post out of it all.

Then, inspired by a recent SitP with Chris French, I decided I would do a post on spirits, ghosts and general anomalistic psychology, with a real focus on re-incarnation.

Then something happened which meant that posting about reincarnation and spirits right now would lead to me offending people I love at a time when they need support rather than criticism. I may post this at some point in the future but not for a while.

But for now, this leaves me with bugger all prepared and it’s a week since the last hamster post…..

so I am ripping off one of Crispian Jago‘s excellent graphics  instead! Crispian also did a talk at my local SitP recently and I’m not scared to rip him off as I think I could beat him in a fight. Well, actually I think I could probably run faster than him but it amounts to the same thing.  I hope you like this (use the zoom function on your browser to embiggenate if it the display’s too small):

Crispians’s hilarious blog can be found at http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com

Art for the Mr Credulous (also from Crispan’s blog) is by India Jago

Don’t Get your Science from journalists!

Even though the British media aren’t particularly into climate change denial, they do prefer a good pile of inaccurate, misleading, public ignorance enhancing crap over the facts anyday.

You’ve probably read- or at least skimmed past the headline- about the report that says that there’s been no significant loss of glacial ice in the Himilayas. You’ve probably read- or if you were a little wiser than I avoided- the awful ignorant rantings of the deniers saying that this is further proof of the Global Warming Hoax.

Of course, the coverage has been totally misleading and this report, rather than boasting the deniers case, is further evidence of climate change and its very real seriousness.

Potholer54 states the case better than I could so here he is to explain why the headlines were not exactly accurate:

Anonymity

It seems there is a way to follow blogs anonymously. I didn’t know. Feel free to do so with this one- or comment anonymously if you want.

If you’re going to try to remain anonymous though, you might not want to use a gravatar account that reveals who you are.

Just saying.

Happy stalking.