Therapeutic Touch ~ evidence for effectiveness?

Truthseeker how would your regulatory bodies respond if such was introduced ? I work in blood transfusion, we are very tightly regulated and would get crucified if we introduced something without a huge amount of evidence. And quite rightly so.

Patients would assume any treatment offered by a hospital is effacious. Its real sick people we are dealing with here, not some hypothetical conversation.
Good Luck Truthseeker.

edited to add:
What are the ethical considerations for treating patients with a placebo?
 
Steve,

Harrassment? Pah!
Really, I'm holding back, old son. If I said what I really thought in the language I'm thinking it ...
Anyway I don't want to get banned.

So, back to the topic -

I did not expect you to wade through 454 citations. Its just that your earlier posts in this thread suggested some familiarity with TT . For example -
Many TT pracititoners do not even claim to be able to detect the energies from their subjects which is what Emily was testing. They claim the reverse -- that their energies are going out to the subject, not vice versa.
and
The objective and claim of therapeutic touch is for the subject-patient to feel the intervention, not the practitioner. Granted there are some so-called healers who say they make diagnoses by feeling the patient but this is not the basic claim of TT.
Click to expand...
You also expressed doubts about the mechanism claimed by the NH-PAI -
I agree their ability to diagnose is dubious with variable outcomes. I personally do not accept this.
Click to expand...
So I assumed that you knew more about this stuff than me and that you thought there might be something to it. Hence my request for a reputable study.
You have already posted some abstracts, but they don't give enough detail of the protocols for any meaningful discussion.
If you need a week or so to come up with something then fair enough. I'll still be here.
 
Martinm said:
Of course not. Why do you think he's whining so much?
Click to expand...

This post has been reported. I find no violation of the rules here.

hal
 
SteveGrenard said:
Reprinted here to preserve:

Dragon
Critical Thinker

Registered: Mar 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 495


So Steve, back to the topic -

Have you found a decent pro-TT study yet?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
10-06-2003 02:46 AM



Martinm
Sceptic

Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2651


Of course not. Why do you think he's whining so much?

------------------------------------------------

If you read this thread up to and including the place where Yahzi and Larsen began to get scared I would make good on my promise and they proceeded to insult, libel and slander me, you would have known (wake up Mr Dragon and Mr MartinM, A.H.) , I said above it would take 1-week+ to go through 454 citations. At that time I will post both pro and con studies on the subject. So Dragon, you are now a part of Larsen and Yotzso's little game and MartinM is also a member of the pee-nut gallery also? Welcome to the club. See you in a week with the results. In the meantime badgering and harassment by you will be ignored so you can stop wasting your time.

This little story of Larsen, Yahzo now will include harassment by Dragon and Martin. Stop the harassment. The biased moderators here do not know it is against forum rules but it is.

You discredit yourselves and just prove how intolerant, bigotted and scared you are of dissenting evidence. What yellow bellied cowards you all turn out to be. I expected this of Larsen but now ....

I would have thought you would have waited for the results and argue on the merits instead of continuiing to launch ad hominem attacks and character assasinations. How absolutely dissapointing.
Click to expand...

this post has been reported. I find no rules violation, to include the attack on the moderators.

hal
 
SteveGrenard said:
Since Rosa mom mislabeled the title of the study, she loses all credibility with me.
Click to expand...

If mislabelling is so damaging to the credibility of the person doing it that they lose all credibility with you, could you explain why labelling someone the "principal detective" when this was patently untrue does not seem to have the same effect in the Jacqui Poole case?
 
Pyrrho said:
This thread has been reported, I've read it, and I'm going to say right here and now that I am not going to moderate catfights. I don't see anything here that has violated any of the rules.

I am not going to delete any posts.

My decision, of course, can be appealed to the administrators.

edited to add: For those who may not know, the DSM-III is the
third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Referring to it as a book about Steve Grenard is of course a base insult. A cheap shot, certainly, but not a rule violation.
Click to expand...

this post, by an outstanding moderator, has been reported to me. There is absolutely no rule violation by the moderator here, and I urge the reportee to calm down.

hal
 
CFLarsen said:


Steve,

If it is any consolation, I haven't a clue what Yahzi is talking about. Still, since you have requested the deletion of his post, I have saved it for posterity.
Click to expand...

this post has been reported. I find no rules violation here.

hal
 
Yahzi said:

They already have. It's called the DSM-III.

:D :D :D
Click to expand...

This post has been reported. I find no rules violation here, but certainly a rude comment. Rude comments are permitted if not encouraged.

hal
 
Steve Grenard wrote:

I look at the term Therapeutic Touch by its strict definitional status:

Therapeutic = treatment

Touch = actually touching the subject

The issue to disprove or prove, falsify or not, is whether these persons can meet the burden of their claim which is that they effect relief in a subject by touching them.

Steve, have you ever seen an actual TT session? On what source do you base your conclusion that Therapeutic Touch actually involves physical contact? Was it something you read in a book? Found in a medical journal? Dredged up with your beloved Google? Manufactured out of the whole cloth using your imagination?

Over my nearly fifteen years of working in hospitals, I've seen many, many TT practitioners doing their, their... whathaveyou, and I can't remember a single instance in which any one of them did the type of procedure you're describing; touching, manipulating, palpating. That's just not what TT is... that's the sad fact. If you think differently, then I've just got to assume that you have no actual experience with the subject, and you're (once again) trying to force the square peg of reality, into the round hole that is your personal belief system.

P.S.- I've actually witnessed a TT practitioner(OR nurse), waving her hands over a heart bypass machine during an open heart procedure. That's right... she was doing TT on the patient's blood while it was outside of the patient! :eek:

Now, I'm sure you'll try and tell me that this is a farce, and not the proper Grenard(tm) method of TT, so it does not count, and can therefore be ignored, and discounted... but let me assure you, this is the actual type of TT that is taking place in the real world. I've seen it with my own eyes. Take off your Google goggles and have a look for yourself.
 
Psiload said:
you're (once again) trying to force the square peg of reality, into the round hole that is your personal belief system
Click to expand...
...no. I will be strong. I will resist.
 
No, I think I will not be posting here anymore. As a result of the moderators failure to enforce the rules of the forum and permit character assasination, argumentium ad hominem, rude and harassing posts directed upon another poster here, it would be giving in on my part to continue to participate in this charade or farce. Totally and completely gratuitous attacks, for which there was no provocation but which do not meet the moderator's standard to delete indicates to me that you are not interested in
dissent or countervailing opinion unless it somehow agrees with your agenda. Your rules are also selectively enforced with some posters allowed to get away wit h this and big crybabies like Larsen screaming the loudest when they are applied to him. He has been on my ignore list now for several months but unfortunately I am forced to read his crap when someone re-quotes him in their own posts. I guess the ignore thing is not a perfect system.

I will, however, make good my promise of re-posting these posts, the decisions of the moderators and such other comments made by the likes of Larsen which are designed to discourage dissenting opinions. The choir can go back to what they were doing before. My objective now will be to show everyone outside this little enclave how really not interested you all are in true skepticism and the illicit lengths to which you will resort to improperly quell dissent.

My hopes and, and yes, prayers go with your wife Hal and I am sorry to have burdened you with this nonesense at this time. But then again, it was not I who made the gratuitous attacks, it was Larsen and Yahzi, protected members no doubt.
 
SteveGrenard said:
No, I think I will not be posting here anymore. As a result of the moderators failure to enforce the rules of the forum and permit character assasination, argumentium ad hominem, rude and harassing posts directed upon another poster here, it would be giving in on my part to continue to participate in this charade or farce. Totally and completely gratuitous attacks, for which there was no provocation but which do not meet the moderator's standard to delete indicates to me that you are not interested in
dissent or countervailing opinion unless it somehow agrees with your agenda. Your rules are also selectively enforced with some posters allowed to get away wit h this and big crybabies like Larsen screaming the loudest when they are applied to him. He has been on my ignore list now for several months but unfortunately I am forced to read his crap when someone re-quotes him in their own posts. I guess the ignore thing is not a perfect system.

I will, however, make good my promise of re-posting these posts, the decisions of the moderators and such other comments made by the likes of Larsen which are designed to discourage dissenting opinions. The choir can go back to what they were doing before. My objective now will be to show everyone outside this little enclave how really not interested you all are in true skepticism and the illicit lengths to which you will resort to improperly quell dissent.

My hopes and, and yes, prayers go with your wife Hal and I am sorry to have burdened you with this nonesense at this time. But then again, it was not I who made the gratuitous attacks, it was Larsen and Yahzi, protected members no doubt.
Click to expand...

Steve, before you go home, could you leave us the ball, so we can keep...

Steve?

Steve?

Dang, he took his ball with him.
 
For those who are lurking and unsure of where they stand on issues such as TT and psychic detectives, for those who ask what's the harm in belief, and for Steve, too, this thread and this post should be locked in your memory.

Steve is one of the more intelligent and educated posters on this board. He can be well-spoken and thoughtful. Yet when his beliefs are challenged, he comes apart without knowing it.

This thread asked for evidence, but none is forthcoming. Instead, there are misdirections and sidesteppings. "I won't prove my point until you admit you haven't disproved it!" says Steve.

People have been rude to Steve on this thread and others, but not egregiously so. The response has been the condemnation and reporting of the offending posts and those posts remotely related to it. Echoes of Bush saying "If you're not with us, you're against us."

Steve has a brain, but chooses not to engage it. On this thread, like so many others, he will not voice an opinion. I can only guess that he refrains because he will be able to retain his beliefs when his posts are refuted with the silent claim "They might have refuted that article, but they haven't refuted me."

This is purely conjecture on my part, but I believe his behavior is attributable to such an attitude.

Of course, I'd be willing to admit I have no real evidence for this belief and admit I'm wrong.
 
I agree. Steve is a thoughtful believer but cannot rationally look at evidence. Like an uber patroit who will never critisize his country no matter what the evidence.
 
Prester John said:
Truthseeker how would your regulatory bodies respond if such was introduced ? I work in blood transfusion, we are very tightly regulated and would get crucified if we introduced something without a huge amount of evidence. And quite rightly so.

Patients would assume any treatment offered by a hospital is effacious. Its real sick people we are dealing with here, not some hypothetical conversation.
Good Luck Truthseeker.

edited to add:
What are the ethical considerations for treating patients with a placebo?
Click to expand...


Hi John
As you state, our regulatory bodies would have to be convinced that any new treatment was efficacious. However, before it even got that far, it has to be approved by various levels of the hospital administration. There would also be implications for the hospital's and healthcare providers' insurance.

Your placebo question is extremely important and probably worthy of a thread of its own. It is next to impossible to get a placebo study approved by our hospital ethics board. The usual comparison now is new treatment versus standard of care. We are not interested in inventing the mousetrap, but in inventing a better mousetrap.

The few studies I know of that include a placebo or a placebo component (for instance: say you want to test whether adding B to standard of care A would improve outcomes, you could probably get the following design approved: A vs A+placebo vs A+B), MUST include full disclosure to patients of the possibility of receiving a placebo and any potential risks that might involve.

Must run but would love to continue a discussion of the ethics of placebo
 
Garrette said:
...Steve is one of the more intelligent and educated posters on this board...
Click to expand...
I disagree. He maintains a number of supernatural positions without evidence. He is as rational as Lucie and Ian. Which is to say, not at all.
 
TruthSeeker said:
I
The head of occupational therapy and the head of nursing made a joint proposal. They want to introduce complimentary/alternative medicine. Two general objections were immediately raised by the research and medical staff: 1) no evidence for effectiveness; 2) not covered under our health care system, so who pays?

Responses: 1) there are now RCTs showing the effectiveness of therapeutic touch (and the lack of RCTs doesn't mean that shark cartilege and homeopathy don't work) and 2) patients will pay for these services out of pocket thus generating revenue for the hospital.

As a research person, I immediately jumped up and asked for the ref on the RCT of therapeutic touch that found a clinically and statistically meaningful effect. I was told she couldn't remember the ref off hand.

Returning to my office, I emailed her a request for the citation. She read the email at 10:00 am.

No response as of yet.
Click to expand...
Back to the original issue, if I may. TruthSeeker, has this person got back to you with an RCT supporting TT yet?
 
Jeff Corey said:

I disagree. He maintains a number of supernatural positions without evidence. He is as rational as Lucie and Ian. Which to to say, not at all.
Click to expand...

I believe they have supported each others claims at times. The only time I have seen Steve express any doubt was when some physical mediums refused to do their magic act in front of infraread/night vision cameras. Though even then he did not say anything indicating he did not believe them, just that it gave him some concern.
 
Re: Re: Therapeutic Touch ~ evidence for effectiveness?

arcticpenguin said:

Back to the original issue, if I may. TruthSeeker, has this person got back to you with an RCT supporting TT yet?
Click to expand...


Not a word.

I will certainly post whatever I may receive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom