Therapeutic Touch ~ evidence for effectiveness?

[Jeff Corey]

You forgot me, Jeff "Sosueme Warrior". I've only nipped 2 Demon Trolls and have no kills to my record.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Jeff:

The person who characterized that person as "intelligent" was missing a few cues about the stability of his other behavior.

Perhaps, but I'll stand by my assessment. Intelligence misused and intelligence self-ignored are still intelligence.

I never claimed he was stable.

Howsumever, I leave such judgments to the professionals and admit my assessment is merely the opinion of a layperson.

---

P.S. I demand a name, too. Something like "He Who Runs Away Bravely", perhaps...

 

[Pyrrho]

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten...&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama

A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch
Linda Rosa, BSN, RN; Emily Rosa; Larry Sarner; Stephen Barrett, MD


JAMA. 1998;279:1005-1010.

Context.— Therapeutic Touch (TT) is a widely used nursing practice rooted in mysticism but alleged to have a scientific basis. Practitioners of TT claim to treat many medical conditions by using their hands to manipulate a "human energy field" perceptible above the patient's skin.

Objective.— To investigate whether TT practitioners can actually perceive a "human energy field."

Design.— Twenty-one practitioners with TT experience for from 1 to 27 years were tested under blinded conditions to determine whether they could correctly identify which of their hands was closest to the investigator's hand. Placement of the investigator's hand was determined by flipping a coin. Fourteen practitioners were tested 10 times each, and 7 practitioners were tested 20 times each.

Main Outcome Measure.— Practitioners of TT were asked to state whether the investigator's unseen hand hovered above their right hand or their left hand. To show the validity of TT theory, the practitioners should have been able to locate the investigator's hand 100% of the time. A score of 50% would be expected through chance alone.

Results.— Practitioners of TT identified the correct hand in only 123 (44%) of 280 trials, which is close to what would be expected for random chance. There was no significant correlation between the practitioner's score and length of experience (r=0.23). The statistical power of this experiment was sufficient to conclude that if TT practitioners could reliably detect a human energy field, the study would have demonstrated this.

Conclusions.— Twenty-one experienced TT practitioners were unable to detect the investigator's "energy field." Their failure to substantiate TT's most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of TT are groundless and that further professional use is unjustified.

The full article is available for the price of twelve dollars.

The bottom line is that TT practitioners were unable to demonstrate a fundamental principle of their alleged ability. From that we can deduce that TT is invalid, because if they cannot even detect an energy field, how can they possibly effect changes in it, or peform diagnoses from it?

 

[Rolfe]

The bottom line is that TT practitioners were unable to demonstrate a fundamental principle of their alleged ability.

Precisely. Of course, after this happened, suddenly we start hearing that the practitioners don't NEED to be able to feel the field to affect it. So if the 21 practitioners couldn't in fact feel the field and didn't think they could, why did they agree to the test in the first place?

Which is why Emily's father asked exactly what would constitute proof, in the eyes of the proponents, that TT was invalid. We see this again and again - practitioners claim a power, but when a test shows that the claim is invalid they shift their ground and declare that the power doesn't work that way.

There has to be some agreement about what test, if it is failed, will constitute contrary evidence. This they invariably weasel out of addressing.

It's like Randi's challenge - the applicant has to agree what will constitute a negative result. Otherwise the claim is untestable and outwith the bounds of science anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[BillHoyt]

That alone is a big enough number to make one, if they are interested, take a hard look at both the pro and con studies and if they are into this, develop a protocol and design (not like the silly Rosa science fair project) with a statiscally significant number of trials to make some definitive findings.
...
Yahzi now enjoys the distinction with Claus Larsen, Bill Hoyt and no doubt a few others who are not above employing such tactics. They discredit themselves. by doing so.

Steve,

A single post that both slams a 9 year old and accuses the skeptic posse of attempted censorship. What would it take to turn the hat-trick on this one.

The last time I spoke with Emily's mom, Linda thought that Emily was the youngest person to ever publish research in JAMA. That is quite an accomplishment. This nine-year old's research design was impressive. It cut right to the core of the TT claim by trying to discover whether TT practitioners can even tell whether a human is present, let along the health status of their "biofields".

To dis Emily's accomplishment in this way, Steve, has to bring credophilia to a new nadir. I suppose congratulations are in order.

 

[BNiles]

I'm not sure if this has been covered, but is Theripeutic Touch the same as massage therapy? I think it is in the same ball park anyway. I know some research was done by Tiffany Field, PhD, a psychologist and director of the Touch Therapy Institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine. I haven't been able to find the actual study yet, but I have heard and read several articles about her findings.

The most interesting to me was the effect it has on premature babies. i.e. faster growth rates, earlier release, fewer complications. A simple Google search will turn up many articles.

 

[Marc]

I'm not sure if this has been covered, but is Theripeutic Touch the same as massage therapy?

nope, totally different.

In Therapeutic Touch you never actually touch the person. You run your hands over their aura, fixing any problems there.

 

[Quasi]

If anyone is interested, the co-founder of TT, Dolores Krieger, a nurse published a full response to the failure. She essentially said that if she hooks up high voltage to someone, places a photographic plate near the person, she gets a picture of an energy field. Somehow this is the "proof" that TT works. This is called Kirlian Field photography, where they stupidly assume this is caused by an aura, soul etc., yet there is not aura if a) it is done in a vacuum and b) if there is no voltage. Essentially it is charged droplets of water hitting the photo plate, nothing more. Dolores Krieger has merely avoided any discussion of the test and results. I am sure you can find her response on the internet. I read it some time ago. This was not widely touted in the media (big surprise.)

 

[BTox]

nope, totally different.

In Therapeutic Touch you never actually touch the person. You run your hands over their aura, fixing any problems there.

Really? I know nothing of the topic, but assumed there was actual touching involved. Wow, what a crock...

 

[Rolfe]

This is called Kirlian Field photography, where they stupidly assume this is caused by an aura, soul etc....

This is such an old scam. I wouldn't be surprised to find it among the usual quacks and charlatans, but to find it among "legitimate" medical professionals is disturbing, to say the least.

Yes, and the rest of the woo-woo quackery that doctors get into, but this is nurses in real hospitals where there are real consultants who should be able to say, get knotted you nutcase.

Rolfe.

 

[Pyrrho]

This online article addresses some of the criticisms of Emily Rosa's experiment:

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

A panel of 15 JAMA editors passed this on for publication. They were highly mindful that if this particular study didn't pass muster, the journal's reputation would suffer. Had they suppressed it for nonscientific reasons, they would have been guilty of ignoring facts. JAMA editor George Lundberg put it well: "Age doesn't matter. All we care about is good science. This was good science."

...and, from The Rocky Mountain Skeptics:

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

The Journal of the American Medical Association is a well-established publication with a reputation for printing reliable information that physicians can use to cure diseases and save lives. It is among the most prestigious and accepted science-based magazines in the world. It is listened to; its publication is eagerly anticipated every week and the popular media frequently report on significant or interesting information that it contains.

It is therefore, doubly egregious, indeed, completely irresponsible, for JAMA editors to give space to work that, at the very best, can be described as competent for a 4th grade science project. As shown above, the quality of the research is exemplary of either very bad science or adequate school work. No matter how desperate we in the skeptical community are for a win in our column, JAMA, as a respected member of this community, did us no service by either the publication of a schoolgirl’s project or the subsequent over-promotion of the results and pronouncements about the works’ significance and policy implications.

And, consider the outcry from critics of TT if a nine year old child whose mother was Dolores Krieger had conducted the TT experiment which concluded that the HEF did exist.

 

[dmarker]

I'm not sure if this has been covered, but is Theripeutic Touch the same as massage therapy? I think it is in the same ball park anyway. I know some research was done by Tiffany Field, PhD, a psychologist and director of the Touch Therapy Institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine. I haven't been able to find the actual study yet, but I have heard and read several articles about her findings.

The most interesting to me was the effect it has on premature babies. i.e. faster growth rates, earlier release, fewer complications. A simple Google search will turn up many articles.

No, it's not massage therapy. Massage therapy does allieviate symptoms but it doesn't actually cure anything.

From http://www.amtamassage.org/about/physicians.htm

"An increasing number of research studies show massage reduces heart rate, lowers blood pressure, increases blood circulation and lymph flow, relaxes muscles, improves range of motion, and increases endorphins (enhancing medical treatment). Although therapeutic massage does not increase muscle strength, it can stimulate weak, inactive muscles and, thus, partially compensate for the lack of exercise and inactivity resulting from illness or injury. It also can hasten and lead to a more complete recovery from exercise or injury.

People with the following conditions have reported that therapeutic massage has lessened or relieved many of their symptoms.

Arthritis 1
Asthma 2
Carpal tunnel syndrome 3
Chronic and acute pain 4
Circulatory problems 5
Gastrointestinal disorders (including spastic colon, colic and constipation)
Headache 7
Immune function disorders 8
Insomnia 9
Myofascial pain 10
Premature infants 11
Reduced range of motion 12
Sports injuries 13 (including pulled or strained muscles and ligaments)
Stress 14
Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction 15 "

Notice that the quote said nothing about a cure.

 

[Jeff Corey]

:...and, from The Rocky Mountain Skeptics:

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

After I read that, I had the impression they were being overly harsh. But then I reflected on the fact that they had been on the TT case for years and may have felt that this simple test would be violently attacked by TT proponents (it was) and somehow weaken their position.
Yes, randomization could have been done better. But I don't see how a double blind study could have been accomplished. Put out Emily's eyes with a pointed stick and have the data collector unaware of which hand she held out?
The experiment had the elegance of a Randi test. The TT people claim to sense and then manipulate an "energy field" that extends at least 15 cm around human bodies. Can they sense that?
Not better than chance, Bucko.
Ba da boom, ba da bang.

 

[Jeff Corey]

No, it's not massage therapy. Massage therapy does allieviate symptoms but it doesn't actually cure anything.

From http://www.amtamassage.org/about/physicians.htm

"An increasing number of research studies show massage reduces heart rate, lowers blood pressure, increases blood circulation and lymph flow, relaxes muscles, improves range of motion, and increases endorphins (enhancing medical treatment). Although therapeutic massage does not increase muscle strength, it can stimulate weak, inactive muscles and, thus, partially compensate for the lack of exercise and inactivity resulting from illness or injury. It also can hasten and lead to a more complete recovery from exercise or injury.

People with the following conditions have reported that therapeutic massage has lessened or relieved many of their symptoms.

Arthritis 1
Asthma 2
Carpal tunnel syndrome 3
Chronic and acute pain 4
Circulatory problems 5
Gastrointestinal disorders (including spastic colon, colic and constipation)
Headache 7
Immune function disorders 8
Insomnia 9
Myofascial pain 10
Premature infants 11
Reduced range of motion 12
Sports injuries 13 (including pulled or strained muscles and ligaments)
Stress 14
Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction 15 "

Notice that the quote said nothing about a cure.

OK, what's a cure?
Insulin doesn't cure diabetes, it controls it enough that most diabetics can survive longer.
Years ago I helped a friend move his stock out his record store. Vinyl LPs packed into plastic milk crates weigh quite a bit and I didn't know to use my knees when lifting. I pulled a
back muscle. A friend was studying therapeutic massage and relieved the pain temporarily. But she also said, "If the pain comes back and you can't get a massage, try heat, hot water, like that."
So I bought a Showerpik shower head that pulses hot water and can be fine tuned. It relieves pain. Trust me.
I can't wait untilI try out our new Jacuzzi(tm).

 

[Pyrrho]

After I read that, I had the impression they were being overly harsh. But then I reflected on the fact that they had been on the TT case for years and may have felt that this simple test would be violently attacked by TT proponents (it was) and somehow weaken their position.
Yes, randomization could have been done better. But I don't see how a double blind study could have been accomplished. Put out Emily's eyes with a pointed stick and have the data collector unaware of which hand she held out?
The experiment had the elegance of a Randi test. The TT people claim to sense and then manipulate an "energy field" that extends at least 15 cm around human bodies. Can they sense that?
Not better than chance, Bucko.
Ba da boom, ba da bang.

Yes...sometimes simplicity is better than complexity. I wouldn't complain about "science fair projects", either. Way back in 6th grade one kid built a functioning seismograph that did actually register a genuine tremor. Oh, wait, that's anecdotal...happened back in the '60s before Encylopoedia Internet was established.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I agree that simplicity is to be favored over elaborate experimental designs to study straightforward questions such as, "Can these people sense the so-called energy fields?" Complex factorial designs can answer questions such as, " Is there an interaction between drug A and B on the activity level of rats."

 

[Cynical]

Crowunit, you are complicating things with your shrink-like rhetoric.

Hot water relieves pain. Plain and simple. Crow states this fact as if he had invented electricity.

 

[BillHoyt]

I agree that simplicity is to be favored over elaborate experimental designs to study straightforward questions such as, "Can these people sense the so-called energy fields?"

"Prof. Dolores Kreiger at NYU was awarded an IgNobel for discovering the value of therapeutic touch (moving ones hands above sick people to cure them)...

Prof Kreiger chose not to attend the IgNobel ceremonies so her award was received by Emily Rosa. Emily designed a test of therapeutic touch for her forth (sic) grade science fair project. She had 21 TT practitioners try to identify her hand behind a screen in blind trials. They showed chance performance. Emily's mother (a nurse) joined with several MD's to write up the results of this science fair project (Rosa, L, Rosa, E. et al. A close look at Therapeutic Touch, JAMA, 1998 (April 1), 279, 1005-1009). [note the date of the issue --some editor at JAMA must have a sense of humor!]

The high point of the evening was when Emily got up to receive the award. The audience went quiet, the paper airplanes stopped flying, and four Nobel prize Laureates stood up to lead the entire audience in a standing ovation. A moist eye scene. Emily, who is now 12, had a moment of stage fright but then gave a fine talk. Since she still has an idealized view of how science operates she said that she was unhappy that different TT therapists have now said her results are invalid since (a) there was air conditioning in the room (b) Emily doesn't have proper energy fields (c) and the lowest blow of all--that she was an incipient teenager."

[emphasis mine]

source

Cheers,

 

[BNiles]

nope, totally different.

In Therapeutic Touch you never actually touch the person. You run your hands over their aura, fixing any problems there.

Now that's just silly.

I used to do this to my older brother. I would get my hand very close to him without actually touching him. I would taunt, "I'm not touching you!"

If memory serves me correctly, I seem to remember it causing more harm than good. At least harm to me anyway.

 

[BNiles]

Kirlian Field photography

I've seen a few shows that breifly talked about Kirlian Field photography; and though I know about how voltage is applied to the subject to produce these images, I found one segment of interest.

In this segment, and small leaf was photographed and it produced an expected image. Then the leaf was cut in half and photographed again. The surprize came when the new image was shown to display the original "Full" leaf shape that slowly dissolved to the present half shape.

It was argued that the leaf's "biofield" was still displaying it's full form, but couldn't maintain it for long periods. Do I believe this? Well, I'm a skeptic first and foremost. This means that a 3 and a half minute clip on a science show does not research make. I would need to see more, and have these test peer reviewed by people far more qualified than me.

Still, it was pretty eye catching.