Reiki?

[Stereolab]

My girlfriend pays for sessions with a Reiki Master. I am pretty open-minded about "alternative" healing treatments (I believe that acupuncture, hypnosis etc. can be beneficial) but this Reiki stuff seems like a crock to me. I am surprised at the lack of skeptical/critical information about it...I haven't found much, anyway. Does anyone know anything about this and whether or not it has any value?

 

[krelnik]

Doctor RW just wrote a good blog post about this last Thursday. There are some additional links within.

--Tim Farley

 

[MWare]

Whenever I stumble across something that seems a little fishy I usually first go to skepdic (www.skepdic.com)

You should probably also check out their sections on acupuncture, hypnosis, etc.

 

[Stereolab]

Wow, thanks, that's really interesting--especially considering I live in Maryland.

My girlfriend was high school valedictorian, is a genius, and is an agnostic bordering on atheist. Why is she into this stuff?

(she's into a lot of new agey stuff but this Reiki thing is especially ridiculous to me)

 

[Stereolab]

You should probably also check out their sections on acupuncture, hypnosis, etc.

I glossed them over and they seem pretty accurate. I don't believe in magical Chi energy and past lives and all that stuff--but I do think there is some real benefit to those techniques, and the skepdic articles seem to acknowledge that.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

About 5 years ago I took a reiki class. Suffice to say that "class" was my first step towards critical thinking. It was total nonsense and I could not believe that the other students actually believed it. Upon my return home I googled "reiki" found this Randi site and started a brand new journey in critical and skeptical thinking. How I wish I'd have googled prior to laying down the 100 plus bucks for that stupid course. Since that time, with the help of sites like Randi, Shermer, CSICOPs, etc. I've dumped my woo woo ways, vaccinate my animals, use conventional medicines, use herbs ONLY in cooking, and thank science and technology for the good life I have.

 

[firecoins]

when I am a paramedic, I will not be doing Reiki in my ambulance.

 

[Soapy Sam]

A couple of years ago, I visited a lady who "gives" reiki.
She seemed to be wholly genuine in her belief. She maintained she could sense my energy field quite clearly, even with her eyes closed. I asked her if she could then tell , with her eyes closed, when I moved. She said "yes", but when tested, could not.

The whole idea that energy can be transmitted to a person miles from the sender , without allowing for such problems as locating the receiver on a spinning planet, seems deeply silly. If it worked, I think a number of intelligence agencies would use it for assassination. (Of course reiki "masters" will say the energy is always benign, but energy is energy. If it can make you well, it could make you unwell.)

Fortunately, it does neither, as it does not exist.

What I suspect does exist is the ability to diagnose some medical conditions from subtle cues of body language. I suspect some alternative healers have that ability to a reasonable degree, but mistakenly believe their ability is due to a psychic gift, rather than to unconscious observation.

(I suspect doctors who are good diagnosticians have the same ability, augmented in their case, by actual knowledge).

 

[vexed]

I glossed them over and they seem pretty accurate. I don't believe in magical Chi energy and past lives and all that stuff--but I do think there is some real benefit to those techniques, and the skepdic articles seem to acknowledge that.

Where do they give validity to acupunture? Did you miss the excert below?
Acupunture:

"Research during the past twenty years has failed to demonstrate that acupuncture is effective against any disease" and that "the perceived effects of acupuncture are probably due to a combination of expectation, suggestion, counter-irritation, operant conditioning, and other psychological mechanisms." In short, most of the perceived beneficial effects of acupuncture are probably due to mood change, the placebo effect, and the regressive fallacy.

Source: skepdic.com

 

[vexed]

Double post...

 

[Stereolab]

From later portions of the article...

"Some research indicates sticking needles into certain points affects the nervous system and stimulates the body's production of natural painkilling chemicals such as endorphins and enkephalins, and triggers the release of certain neural hormones including serotonin. Another theory suggests that acupuncture blocks the transmission of pain impulses from parts of the body to the central nervous system."

"But those with back pain who get stuck with needles respond at a significantly higher rate to the treatment than those who do not get needled."

"A study found that the technique can turn off parts of the brain involved in pain, which could explain how the practice may work as an anaesthetic.

"Researchers found that an acupuncture technique using deep needling led to the deactivation of part of the brain's limbic system, which helps the body to be conscious of pain."

I do not receive acupuncture myself, nor do I believe all of the mumbo jumbo some practioners spout, but clearly there is evidence that suggests it works.

 

[vexed]

I do not receive acupuncture myself, nor do I believe all of the mumbo jumbo some practioners spout, but clearly there is evidence that suggests it works.

The researchers, from the Ruhr University Bochum, say their findings suggest that the body may react positively to any thin needle prick - or that acupuncture may simply trigger a placebo effect.*

Clearly there isn't evidence to support acupunture... Occam's Razor, which sounds more plausible, placebo effect, or 'meridian manipulation'?

Don't you think if acupunture was scientifically backed by evidence that maybe it would be standard treatment at hospitals that practice science based medicine rather than as a "complementary" therapy?

Prayer is also a "complementary" therapy.

So 'complimentary therapy' does not grant it validity.

 

[Stereolab]

Why are you arguing against portions that I am not citing as evidence?

 

[MWare]

Why are you arguing against portions that I am not citing as evidence?

I believe he's making the point that the conclusion of the piece is that acupuncture, as practiced by acupuncturists, has no proven beneficial impact beyond the placebo effect. The most recent German study (cited there in the entry) shows that people who received "real" acupuncture fared as well as those who received "sham" acupuncture. A placebo effect means a treatment is NOT effective.

The summation paragraph of the entry seems to indicate that whatever placebo effects may be received via acupuncture also carry quite serious risks:

Finally, acupuncture is not without risks. There have been some reports of lung and bladder punctures, some broken needles, and some allergic reactions to needles containing substances other than surgical steel. Acupuncture may be harmful to the fetus in early pregnancy since it may stimulate the production of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and oxytocin, which affect labor. There is always the possibility of infection from unsterilized needles.* And some patients will suffer simply because they avoided a known effective treatment of modern medicine.

The hypnosis section also has a similar conclusion that hypnosis, while also possibly offering a placebo effect, can have disastrous results.

The important thing to remember is that the vast majority of the literature on these treatments seem to indicate that these are not effective courses of treatment when compared with accepted health care treatments. The Skepdic entries seem to support that and I believe this is what Vexed is stating. It is inappropriate to cite one piece of evidence without taking it within the context of the entire body of research on the subject or citing one part of the entry without noting the conclusion.

ETA: If you are willing to accept the placebo effect as evidence of efficacy, than there is no argument to made against reiki either.

 

[Stereolab]

I believe he's making the point that the conclusion of the piece is that acupuncture, as practiced by acupuncturists, has no proven beneficial impact beyond the placebo effect. The most recent German study (cited there in the entry) shows that people who received "real" acupuncture fared as well as those who received "sham" acupuncture. A placebo effect means a treatment is NOT effective.

This misrepresents my claim. I am not making any claim regarding "real" vs. "sham" acupuncture.

The summation paragraph of the entry seems to indicate that whatever placebo effects may be received via acupuncture also carry quite serious risks:

I am making no claim regarding risks of acupuncture.

The important thing to remember is that the vast majority of the literature on these treatments seem to indicate that these are not effective courses of treatment when compared with accepted health care treatments. The Skepdic entries seem to support that and I believe this is what Vexed is stating.

I am making no claim regarding the efficacy of acupuncture versus "accepted health care treatments."

It is inappropriate to cite one piece of evidence without taking it within the context of the entire body of research on the subject or citing one part of the entry without noting the conclusion.

My claim is that "there is evidence that suggests it works" and the article as a whole supports that. Moreover, I do not believe that the part you've been emphasizing is the "conclusion" of the article.

 

[rocketdodger]

My girlfriend pays for sessions with a Reiki Master. I am pretty open-minded about "alternative" healing treatments (I believe that acupuncture, hypnosis etc. can be beneficial) but this Reiki stuff seems like a crock to me. I am surprised at the lack of skeptical/critical information about it...I haven't found much, anyway. Does anyone know anything about this and whether or not it has any value?

Yes, it has value. None of it is what they say, though.

It is pretty easy to use meditative visualizations to increase blood flow to the hands (which seems like "heat" because normally our hands are not at full body temperature). Start touching a person, who might otherwise not get very much human contact, with those suckers and you will see results.

Add to this the non-woo pressure point stuff, placebo effect, and more, and you have yourself a person that can actually make others feel much better. Of course there is no reason to go through all the B.S...

 

[Soapy Sam]

You would agree, I suspect, with my definition of Hairdressing as "alternative / Complementary Therapy".

With the reservation that hairdressing actually achieves predictable and reproducible results.

 

[Cuddles]

This misrepresents my claim. I am not making any claim regarding "real" vs. "sham" acupuncture.

...snip...

My claim is that "there is evidence that suggests it works" and the article as a whole supports that.

Do you not see the problem here? If there is evidence that suggests it works, that means you are making a claim of real vs. sham. If it works better than a placebo, it works. If it is the same as placebo, it doesn't. You can't consider these two points seperately. Either acupuncture works better than placebo, in which case you certainly are making a claim about real vs. sham, or it doesn't work better than placebo, in which case your claim isn't that there is evidence it works.

 

[Stereolab]

Do you not see the problem here?

There is no problem. If you're acknowledging that having needles stuck in you is better than not having needles stuck in you (i.e. placebo), we're in agreement. I'm not looking to prove one acupuncturist is better than another.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

There is no problem. If you're acknowledging that having needles stuck in you is better than not having needles stuck in you (i.e. placebo), we're in agreement. I'm not looking to prove one acupuncturist is better than another.

My emphasis. That's not how you would determine the placebo effect.