Therapeutic Touch ~ evidence for effectiveness? [Archive]

SteveGrenard

4th October 2003, 03:54 AM

As a medical researcher you should be familiar with MedLine/PubMed. If not, it is here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

If you enter "therapeutic touch" (without the quotes) into their search engine, you will get 23 pages of 454 references, most of which have linked abstracts. Here is Page 1 of 23

1: Lusby HR. Related Articles, Links
A response to "A critical evaluation of the theory and practice of therapeutic touch".
Nurs Philos. 2003 Apr;4(1):86. No abstract available.
PMID: 14498972 [PubMed - in process]
2: Salladay SA. Related Articles, Links
Should Christians use therapeutic touch?
Christ Bioeth. 2002 Apr;8(1):25-42. No abstract available.
PMID: 12956145 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Richards K, Nagel C, Markie M, Elwell J, Barone C. Related Articles, Links
Use of complementary and alternative therapies to promote sleep in critically ill patients.
Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2003 Sep;15(3):329-40.
PMID: 12943139 [PubMed - in process]
4: Whelan KM, Wishnia GS. Related Articles, Links
Reiki therapy: the benefits to a nurse/Reiki practitioner.
Holist Nurs Pract. 2003 Jul-Aug;17(4):209-17.
PMID: 12889549 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5: Newshan G, Schuller-Civitella D. Related Articles, Links
Large clinical study shows value of therapeutic touch program.
Holist Nurs Pract. 2003 Jul-Aug;17(4):189-92.
PMID: 12889546 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6: Miles P. Related Articles, Links
Pamela Miles. Reiki vibrational healing. Interview by Bonnie Horrigan.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jul-Aug;9(4):74-83. No abstract available.
PMID: 12868256 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Reynolds M. Related Articles, Links
Reflecting on paediatric oncology nursing practice using Benner's Helping Role as a framework to examine aspects of caring.
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2002 Mar;6(1):30-6.
PMID: 12849607 [PubMed]
8: Tall FD. Related Articles, Links
A close look at "A close look at therapeutic touch".
Nurs Outlook. 2003 May-Jun;51(3):126-9. Review. No abstract available.
PMID: 12830105 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Crawford CC, Jonas WB, Nelson R, Wirkus M, Wirkus M. Related Articles, Links
Alterations in random event measures associated with a healing practice.
J Altern Complement Med. 2003 Jun;9(3):345-53.
PMID: 12816623 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
10: Lewis CR, de Vedia A, Reuer B, Schwan R, Tourin C. Related Articles, Links
Integrating complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into standard hospice and palliative care.
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2003 May-Jun;20(3):221-8. Review.
PMID: 12785044 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11: Chang SO. Related Articles, Links
The nature of touch therapy related to Ki: practitioners' perspective.
Nurs Health Sci. 2003 Jun;5(2):103-14.
PMID: 12709165 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12: Dickstein R, Peterka RJ, Horak FB. Related Articles, Links
Effects of light fingertip touch on postural responses in subjects with diabetic neuropathy.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003 May;74(5):620-6.
PMID: 12700305 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13: Wheeler S. Related Articles, Links
Henry IV of France touching for scrofula, by Pierre Firens.
J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2003 Jan;58(1):79-81. No abstract available.
PMID: 12680011 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14: Rombalski JJ. Related Articles, Links
A personal journey in understanding physical touch as a nursing intervention.
J Holist Nurs. 2003 Mar;21(1):73-80.
PMID: 12666616 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15: Schmehr R. Related Articles, Links
Enhancing the treatment of HIV/AIDS with Reiki training and treatment.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Mar-Apr;9(2):120, 118. No abstract available.
PMID: 12652892 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16: Miles P, True G. Related Articles, Links
Reiki--review of a biofield therapy history, theory, practice, and research.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Mar-Apr;9(2):62-72. Review.
PMID: 12652885 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17: Van Wijk R, Van Wijk EP. Related Articles, Links
The search for a biosensor as a witness of a human laying on of hands ritual.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Mar-Apr;9(2):48-55.
PMID: 12652883 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18: Miles P. Related Articles, Links
Preliminary report on the use of Reiki HIV-related pain and anxiety.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Mar-Apr;9(2):36. No abstract available.
PMID: 12652881 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19: Schiller R. Related Articles, Links
Reiki: a starting point for integrative medicine.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Mar-Apr;9(2):20-1. No abstract available.
PMID: 12652880 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20: Eliopoulos C. Related Articles, Links
Integrative care--Reiki.
Director. 2003 Winter;11(1):33-4. No abstract available.
PMID: 12630139 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

athon

4th October 2003, 04:05 AM

I've noticed you do this a lot, Steve - you suggest a search engine, and cut and paste the results after you've inserted a phrase or term.

Suggesting Medline is one thing, and it occasionally has some interesting articles. But it is more of a links page to articles than a catelogue of research papers. Even looking at the clot you posted here, most of them are more journalistic reports than clinical trials.

I did a bit of search last year on TT, and found a heap of articles, but no reputable RCT's, and of the few 'trials' I found, nothing was repeated. In fact, the search introduced me to one of the real distinctions between pseudoscience and real science - articles on real science can lead you to not only several good clinical trials, but from there you can find repeats performed by institutions that have good reputations. Pseudoscience articles lead you nowhere, or often to some one off report that has never been reproduced.

Athon

SteveGrenard

4th October 2003, 04:17 AM

Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here?

The TruthSeeker says he is a researcher but could find no studies, pro or con save for Rosa which is the skeptic's darling of a study. I am sorry this blew that bubble away. Rosa has been refuted in many of the critiques and commentaries. A study done by a child, but really by her mother who with her colleagues, used Emily to make a point. It was an experiment where the investigator Emily, was the test subject and the sole test subject and started out as a school science project and ended up in the JAMA thanks to her mother and her friend's influence and assistance. as co-authors. Predictably TS could walk into the next meeting with Rosa in hand, and if his opponents are prepared, they will have the refutations and solidly trounce it. Don't you think it would be a good idea for TS to be prepared as well?

Re: referring to websites and pasting examples..........................................

Yes I do that a lot. So? On these pages you will find serious pro and con articles on TT. I pasted only page 1, there are 22 more. This was to give TS a flavor for what he would be looking at.

The Seeker should find his or her own way. I made no particular references. People asking for research help should be pointed. But doing their homework for them?

The items listed in MedLine are citations. Many have free links to abstracts. If the abstract interests you any medical library can order the full text if it is not available on-line which is also indicated.

From your chiding it would seem you are not familiar with PubMed's usefulness either or how it can or should be used.
Either that or you are trying to suppress its use by castigating any suggestion of its usefulness for Truth Seeker's quest.

Any institution, even in Canada, should research a modality thoroughly before offering it to its patients. This means a complete literature search, and an evaluation of that literature by many people both pro and con. If I were TruthSeeker I'd insist that every one of the 450 or so items listed in MedLine be acquired and distributed to a committee who should then read, consider, discuss and report back its decision either yea or nay. Discussing it at JREF won't cut it. Getting resources here will. Tell me athon you didn't write this:

"That's one thing this forum is good for - resources."

:roll:

TruthSeeker

4th October 2003, 11:44 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here?

The TruthSeeker says he

[B]It's not so important, but I am a she.

s a researcher but could find no studies, pro or con save for Rosa

.This is not what I said. I did not go into the meeting prepared to discuss TT. It is far outside my area of specialty. I know the Rose study because it is famous. I was asking for double-blind RCTs which found effectiveness and clinical significance for TT. Not just a list of papers on TT. I was looking for supportive evidence. That my colleague has yet to send the reference she cited suggests it does not exist but we shall see if she produces the evidence.

which is the skeptic's darling of a study. I am sorry this blew that bubble away. Rosa has been refuted in many of the critiques and commentaries. A study done by a child, but really by her mother who with her colleagues, used Emily to make a point. It was an experiment where the investigator Emily, was the test subject and the sole test subject and started out as a school science project and ended up in the JAMA thanks to her mother and her friend's influence and assistance. as co-authors. Predictably TS could walk into the next meeting with Rosa in hand, and if his opponents are prepared, they will have the refutations and solidly trounce it. Don't you think it would be a good idea for TS to be prepared as well?

This is really not my job. However, the debate if there is to be one should be based on double-blind RCTs looking at clinically relevant populations (especially those we work with in our hospital). We are trying to make decisions about actual patients and we do not easily generalize across populations. As such, the Rosa study would be excluded.

The Seeker should find his or her own way. I made no particular references. People asking for research help should be pointed. But doing their homework for them?

I was not asking anyone to do my homework. I thought 1) it was an interesting story about an attempt to introduce CAM. 2) someone might know of a study off hand and spare me time reading through flawed papers. I apologize if that is outside the proper topic for this forum but I didn't think it was.

Any institution, even in Canada, should research a modality thoroughly before offering it to its patients. This means a complete literature search, and an evaluation of that literature by many people both pro and con. If I were TruthSeeker I'd insist that every one of the 450 or so items listed in MedLine be acquired and distributed to a committee who should then read, consider, discuss and report back its decision either yea or nay. Discussing it at JREF won't cut it. Getting resources here will. Tell me athon you didn't write this:

The hospital is under no obligation to waste time and resources conducting such an exercise. If the proponents of TT want it introduced into our standard of care, it is on them to prove its effectiveness. We have pretty clear standards regarding demonstrating the effectiveness of medical interventions. They tried to suggest such evidence existed. Nobody believed them when they were unable to provide a citation. The rest of my colleagues dismissed the idea and moved on. I was curious and thought to look. However, I repeat, the burden of proof is on them, not me or the hospital or the opponents of TT.

SteveGrenard

4th October 2003, 11:55 AM

Okay then, if you are placing the onus on them, its fine. Then they should plow through the reams of literature on the subject. Perhaps somebody clued them into the resources on the subject by now. If you are not interested and not involved, excuse me. I seemed to think you were.

Since they came in unprepared to support their study and offered, as you stated, a non-existent study I was wondering how that non-existent study was chatacerized? Did they mention investigators name(s), a publication in which it appeared or did they just say some study was done, I don't know by who, where, when or what the results were or if it was published or not. Pretty sad argument on their part. There are 453 references in the resource I provided. Some of these are RCTs.

Emily Rosa's study must've been fun for little Emily but it just doesn't cut it on the disproof side for the reasons cited.
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.

LOL...

CFLarsen

4th October 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Emily Rosa's study must've been fun for little Emily but it just doesn't cut it on the disproof side for the reasons cited. 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.

Really? Please provide evidence of this. Are you saying that Emily Rosa's test is not suitable to test TT? What is, then?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
LOL...

You can laugh all you want, Steve, but that doesn't change the fact that TT has not been proved to be a real phenomenon (outside placebo). You might also want to be a little more careful with posing as someone with scientific knowledge. As we have seen, you are utterly incompetent in these matters.

Jeff Corey

4th October 2003, 12:04 PM

TruthSeeker

4th October 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Okay then, if you are placing the onus on them, its fine. Then they should plow through the reams of literature on the subject. Perhaps somebody clued them into the resources on the subject by now. If you are not interested and not involved, excuse me. I seemed to think you were.

Since they came in unprepared to support their study and offered, as you stated, a non-existent study I was wondering how that non-existent study was chatacerized? Did they mention investigators name(s), a publication in which it appeared or did they just say some study was done, I don't know by who, where, when or what the results were or if it was published or not. Pretty sad argument on their part. There are 453 references in the resource I provided. Some of these are RCTs.

Emily Rosa's study must've been fun for little Emily but it just doesn't cut it on the disproof side for the reasons cited.
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.

LOL...

I am interested intellectually but not in terms of setting hospital policy. I am not a clinician nor a hospital administrator.

They began by providing the insight that people really like TT and lots of hospitals provide it. When asked about effectiveness, they mentioned the RCT but could not remember the citation or the primary outcome. It was very sad on their part and I believe set back their agenda quite a bit. Our hospital is notoriously NOT "touchy-feely" and allied health professionals already feel marginalized (including psychology, physio etc. who do have valuable services to offer). Their presentation may add to the general stigma against allied health held by the surgeons and physicians. I hope this does not happen.

Yahzi

4th October 2003, 04:35 PM

TruthSeeker
You rock!

Keep up the good fight. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Larry Barrieau

4th October 2003, 04:55 PM

I teach 7th grade Earth Science and we use the paranormal to apply the scientific method. This past week we watched "The Power of Belief" with John Stossel. The claim of TT was explained and a TT practitioner was waving her hands over a patient. I stopped the tape and asked for comments. Even my seventh graders could discern that it seemed to be a silly claim and that there would have to be powerful evidence to convince them. (And why would anyone conduct a single blind test?)

I had Emily come in and answer questions from my class when she was in the 8th grade. She's a nice girl and at the time she was close to the same age of my students. Her comfort level with her peers made the importance of real science sink in in a way that I could not convey as well.

athon

4th October 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

From your chiding it would seem you are not familiar with PubMed's usefulness either or how it can or should be used.
Either that or you are trying to suppress its use by castigating any suggestion of its usefulness for Truth Seeker's quest.

Any institution, even in Canada, should research a modality thoroughly before offering it to its patients. This means a complete literature search, and an evaluation of that literature by many people both pro and con. If I were TruthSeeker I'd insist that every one of the 450 or so items listed in MedLine be acquired and distributed to a committee who should then read, consider, discuss and report back its decision either yea or nay. Discussing it at JREF won't cut it. Getting resources here will. Tell me athon you didn't write this:

"That's one thing this forum is good for - resources."

:roll:

Yawn.

TS was after some useful clinical trials. Medline can lead you to some with intense searching, granted, but for the most part it would be like searching through a backlog of Newscientist magazines for the same purpose.

All I'm saying is that I've noticed that to appear like you know what you're talking about, you post a search engine site and the seach results. It's like me asking 'where's some trials exploring the hibernation of bears' and you post a Google search on bears. Yay!

This forum is a great place to seek out people who can put you onto good information. But when somebody asks for clinical trials, and you pretend authority through posting search engine results, I just have to giggle to myself.

Athon

SteveGrenard

4th October 2003, 06:25 PM

All reputable clinical trials, pro or con, on this subject are apt to be indexed in Medline. If not, please tell us then where to find them since you know so much about data mining and clinical trials research .... How about the non-existent JREF database of failed challenege applicants? How about the informed comments of individual posters here such as yourself?

The problem is such posters have only one shtick to offer: there ain't none, don't bother, forget about it - never been proved. Same old refrain. People should read the studies, discuss them here, get opinions but all I seem to see around here is wholesale rejection of
concepts without any discussion of the merits or absence of merit from published studies. I am suggesting people think for themselves instead of following the leader ... which, I guess, is a popular game around here.

I guess this worries some people.

TruthSeeker

4th October 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

The problem is such posters have only one shtick to offer: there ain't none, don't bother, forget about it - never been proved. Same old refrain. People should read the studies, discuss them here, get opinions but all I seem to see around here is wholesale rejection of
concepts without any discussion of the merits or absence of merit from published studies. I am suggesting people think for themselves instead of following the leader ... which, I guess, is a popular game around here.

I guess this worries some people.

I did discuss the merits/flaws of the one abstract that was posted.

I am not following the leader. I am not a one schtick pony. You don't know a thing about me, my work or my scientific approach. I am interested in efficiency. If someone already knew the study, they might have saved me some time.

If this were about my own research, I would wade through all the junk because I love the junk ;)

I would be happy to discuss the pros and cons of any study that you'd like.

If you can prove to me that TT provides better than placebo or standard of care outcomes (we rarely test treatments against placebos anymore), clinically relevant outcomes, assessed in a double-blinded fashion using rigourous methodological controls, I would be happy to change my mind about this treatment.

athon

4th October 2003, 07:36 PM

Forget it, TS. This is the same loop that we always dance around, and that the advocates for unproven science seem to ignore.

I for one would also like to see a reputable, repeated clinical trial for TT. But we will get journalistic reports, allusion to trials, names and unsupported figures, and even the odd trial that when analysed is proven to be little more than a statistical report with some odd numbers. Outside of that, we play the same games.

If anybody finds anything, let me know.

Athon

CFLarsen

4th October 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
All reputable clinical trials, pro or con, on this subject are apt to be indexed in Medline. If not, please tell us then where to find them since you know so much about data mining and clinical trials research .... How about the non-existent JREF database of failed challenege applicants? How about the informed comments of individual posters here such as yourself?

Please find some "reputable clinical trials", which are "pro"TT. You are so good at using search engines, Steve, it should be a no-brainer.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The problem is such posters have only one shtick to offer: there ain't none, don't bother, forget about it - never been proved. Same old refrain. People should read the studies, discuss them here, get opinions but all I seem to see around here is wholesale rejection of concepts without any discussion of the merits or absence of merit from published studies. I am suggesting people think for themselves instead of following the leader ... which, I guess, is a popular game around here.

I guess this worries some people.

Nobody is following any leader. But people are apt to ask for evidence. If there is evidence, why can't we see it?

Oh, you forgot these:

Please provide evidence that "They (TT healers) claim the reverse -- that their energies are going out to the subject, not vice versa."
Are you saying that Emily Rosa's test is not suitable to test TT?
What is, then?

Psiload

5th October 2003, 05:42 AM

Steve Grenard posted:

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.

This is true... many TT practitioners amended their claims after Emily's experiment was published. Dora Kunz and Dolores Krieger (basically the inventors of TT) were two such practitioners who changed their tunes after a certain "little Girl" did a certain "silly little test".

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Psiload
Steve Grenard posted:

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.

This is true... many TT practitioners amended their claims after Emily's experiment was published. Dora Kunz and Dolores Krieger (basically the inventors of TT) were two such practitioners who changed their tunes after a certain "little Girl" did a certain "silly little test".

References? Anyone pre-Rosa who claimed this?

Marc

5th October 2003, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

IIRC they claimed they could not detect the energies only after Rosa's experiment was published. If they didn't claim they could feel it then why did any of the nurses participate in her study? Wouldn't they have told her right off "it doesn't work that way"? If they did not think they could feel anything then why proceed with the experiment knowing it would waste their time and hers?

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 06:57 AM

Yup, Emily's mother scammed the nurses she recruited and they were led to believe their intervention would somehow effect Emily's hands. The experiment was a scam to begin with. There was only one subject-patient and it was Emily who, it is also alleged kept turning her hands during some of the trials. To use a child this way is absolutely beneath contempt. Many would not be saying this if it had stayed at the science fair level, if Emily designed the experiment herself and if it was done on the up and up. This scandal is far from over and I think as the years roll on we will be hearing more about the improprieties of this "study." The key element missing from momma Rosa's study was failure to integrate the word "touch" into the protocol! How unbelievably gulllible the so-called skeptics are when they jumped all over this absurd attempt to impeach TT.

If this experiment had different results all of you would be screaming to the rafters concerning these inadequacies.

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. But to test this in one normal, healthy kid exposing her basically healthy hands, top, bottom and even sideways, was ridiculous.
It did not meet the burden of the claim.

TT healers as well as those who claim to be able to feel areas that are diseased or damaged do one important thing the Rosa study did not do: touch them.

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

Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64.

A nurse-statistician reanalyzes data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study.

Cox T.

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Nursing, Richmond, USA.

This article presents a reanalysis of data used to support the work of Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch (TT) science fair project published as an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1998. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the assumptions, data, statistical procedures, and conclusions of the JAMA article. This is accomplished by focusing on (1) the conclusion that there was no overall effect of TT, (2) the conclusion that TT practitioners did not perform better depending on which hand was used, and (3) the assumptions about the capability of Rosa's experiment to validate an existing skill. Reanalysis of the Rosa data suggests contradictions to the authors' conclusions. Based on this reanalysis, the authors' recommendations against the use of TT can and should be challenged because of inappropriate design and analysis as well as incorrect statistical assumptions and conclusions.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2003, 07:12 AM

BS.
Emily tested 21 "experienced practitioners" of TT to see if they could detect whether her hand was there or not.
Unlike Gary Schwartz's asinine experiments, there was no sensory leakage, no gaps in the curtain. And they performed no better than chance.
They may have modified the theory afterward to explain this embarassing result.
Move those goalposts, anyone?

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:17 AM

The goalposts were moved by momma Rosa before the experiment even started.

Thank you for pointing out "Emily" tested these 21 persons. Yes, that's right, one little girl tested 21 pracititioners. Unlike Schwartz, who used different mediums and different sitters, and any therapeutic modality or drug study which uses multiple test subjects/patients, this one used only 1 patient: Emily. What a frace.

This is equivalent to testing 21 different drugs on one patient. It should've been the other way round: 21 subjects tested by one drug (=practitioner). And it wasn't even the claim--which involves "touch." Does everyone here understand the definition of this word?

If by now you cannot see the absurdity of this and feel the refutations are BS, you have a very poor grasp on what was involved.

Laughable in the extreme. This just serves to illustrate how hoaxing a scientific experiment a la Randi doesn't cut it.

Dragon

5th October 2003, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...
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.

LOL...

Well, as you're so fond of using Google to support your position, Steve, let's have a look at the very first link a search on "therapeutic touch" throws up. It is the Nurse Healers - Professional Associates International, Inc. (NH-PAI) - established in 1977 under the leadership of Dolores Krieger, PhD, RN. (http://www.therapeutic-touch.org/default.asp)
If you follow the links to the page entitled "THERAPEUTIC TOUCH POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS" there is a very helpful table detailing the various procedures and their rationale. I draw your attention to item 4 -

PROCEDURE
Assess the condition of the energy field by becoming aware of differences in sensory cues in the palmar surfaces of the hands as well as other intuitive and sensory cues in the field. Hands are usually held about 2-4 inches away from the individual’s body and are moved in a head to feet direction.
RATIONALE & ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Baseline assessment of the energy field is necessary in order to intervene effectively during the TT intervention.

So, Steve, if TT practitioners can't detect a so-called energy field, how can they perform a "baseline assessment" of it?

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:24 AM

Emily kept turning her hands.... palm up, top up and even sideways. She had no problems with her hands. She was NOT a patient. Those 21 nurses should have been tested against 5 or even 10 patients (where have I heard this before?), not just one healthy person. This study was flawed. Period. And did not meet the burdens of the claim which is to effect a measurable therapeutic result in a person with a diseased, disordered or damaged area.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:27 AM

"So, Steve, if TT practitioners can't detect a so-called energy field, how can they perform a "baseline assessment" of it?"

I think it is called "This is where it hurts" Patients voice complaints. I am in agreement that obtaining a diagnosis through the exaggerated claim of detecting changes in the patient's energy field is iffy to say the least but I acknowledged above there are people who claim to be able to do this. This was not the claim, however. Patients enrolling in clinical trials are screened by conventional means or by voicing their complaints. Then the investigator wants to see if the intervention or drug works on them.

Get a bunch of people with carpal tunne syndrome and let an experienced
practitioner test them. Was this a test of diagnostic ability or therpaeutic ability? Momma Rosa's problem she was confounding the two.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yup, Emily's mother scammed the nurses she recruited and they were led to believe their intervention would somehow effect Emily's hands. The experiment was a scam to begin with.

A "scam", Steve?? Emuily's mother "scammed" the nurses? You are making a very serious allegation here, Steve. One I hope you will not regret.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There was only one subject-patient and it was Emily who, it is also alleged kept turning her hands during some of the trials.

Please provide your evidence of this.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
To use a child this way is absolutely beneath contempt.

Why? Emily came up with the idea and design herself, and I fail to see where she got hurt - or even could have gotten hurt.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Many would not be saying this if it had stayed at the science fair level, if Emily designed the experiment herself and if it was done on the up and up. This scandal is far from over and I think as the years roll on we will be hearing more about the improprieties of this "study."

What "improprieties"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The key element missing from momma Rosa's study was failure to integrate the word "touch" into the protocol! How unbelievably gulllible the so-called skeptics are when they jumped all over this absurd attempt to impeach TT.

What are you talking about? Did anyone of the nurses complain about the experiment before the result was in?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If this experiment had different results all of you would be screaming to the rafters concerning these inadequacies.

What inadequacies, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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. But to test this in one normal, healthy kid exposing her basically healthy hands, top, bottom and even sideways, was ridiculous. It did not meet the burden of the claim.

Funny how no nurse complained....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
TT healers as well as those who claim to be able to feel areas that are diseased or damaged do one important thing the Rosa study did not do: touch them.

Really? Please point to where e.g. Dolores Krieger and Dora Kunz (founders of TT) claim that it is not the healers who feel things. Did any of the healers in the experiment claim this?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64.

A nurse-statistician reanalyzes data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study.

Cox T.

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Nursing, Richmond, USA.

This article presents a reanalysis of data used to support the work of Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch (TT) science fair project published as an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1998. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the assumptions, data, statistical procedures, and conclusions of the JAMA article. This is accomplished by focusing on (1) the conclusion that there was no overall effect of TT, (2) the conclusion that TT practitioners did not perform better depending on which hand was used, and (3) the assumptions about the capability of Rosa's experiment to validate an existing skill. Reanalysis of the Rosa data suggests contradictions to the authors' conclusions. Based on this reanalysis, the authors' recommendations against the use of TT can and should be challenged because of inappropriate design and analysis as well as incorrect statistical assumptions and conclusions.

Have you read this analysis, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The goalposts were moved by momma Rosa before the experiment even started.

How? Please specify.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Thank you for pointing out "Emily" tested these 21 persons. Yes, that's right, one little girl tested 21 pracititioners. Unlike Schwartz, who used different mediums and different sitters, and any therapeutic modality or drug study which uses multiple test subjects/patients, this one used only 1 patient: Emily. What a frace.

You may recall that Emily has had considerable problems getting more healers for her tests. Gee, I wonder why...!

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is equivalent to testing 21 different drugs on one patient. It should've been the other way round: 21 subjects tested by one drug (=practitioner).

Actually, it was: Emily Rosa tested 21 different healers. None performed above chance.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If by now you cannot see the absurdity of this and feel the refutations are BS, you have a very poor grasp on what was involved.

You are most welcome to elaborate on the questions, Steve:

In what way did Emily Rosa's mother "scam" the nurses?
Can you provide evidence that "Emily (allegedly) kept turning her hands during some of the trials"?
What are the "improprieties of this study"?
Can you provide evidence that the nurses had to touch the patients?
Has Dolores Krieger or Dora Kunz claimed this? When? Before or after Emily's experiment?
Did any of the nurses in the experiment claim this? When? Before or after Emily's experiment?
Have you read the full Cox analysis?
How were the goalposts moved by Emily's mother before the experiment even started?

You call it a "scandal" and a "scam". Those are serious words to use, Steve. You will have to back them up with very hard evidence.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:34 AM

Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2003 Sep;15(3):329-40. Related Articles, Links

Use of complementary and alternative therapies to promote sleep in critically ill patients.

Richards K, Nagel C, Markie M, Elwell J, Barone C.

Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, 2200 Fort Roots Drive, 3J/NLRVA, North Little Rock, AR 72114, USA. richardskathyc@uams.edu

The efficacy of complementary and alternative therapies for sleep promotion in critically ill patients is largely unexamined. We found only seven studies (three on environmental interventions and one each on massage, music therapy, therapeutic touch, and, melatonin) that examined the effect of complementary and alternative therapies. A number of studies, however, have shown that massage, music therapy. and therapeutic touch promote relaxation and comfort in critically ill patients, which likely leads to improved sleep. Massage, music therapy, and therapeutic touch are safe for critically ill patients and should be routinely applied by ICU nurses who have received training on how to administer these specialized interventions. Environmental interventions, such as reducing noise, playing white noise such as ocean sounds, and decreasing interruptions to sleep for care, also are safe and logical interventions that ICU nurses should use to help patients sleep. Progressive muscle relaxation has been extensively studied and shown to be efficacious for improving sleep in persons with insomnia; however, progressive muscle relaxation requires that patients consciously attend to relaxing specific muscle groups and practice these techniques, which may be difficult for critically 11 patients. We do not currently recommend aromatherapy and alternative sedatives, such as valerian and melatonin, for sleep promotion in critically ill patients because the safety of these substances is unclear. In summary, we recommend that ICU nurses implement music therapy, environmental interventions, therapeutic touch, and relaxing massage to promote sleep in critically ill patients. These interventions are safe and may improve patient sleep, although randomized controlled trials are needed to test their efficacy. Aromatherapy and alternative sedatives require further investigation to determine their safety and efficacy.

-----------------------------------------------
Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64. Related Articles, Links

Biobehavioral effects of therapeutic touch.

Engle VF, Graney MJ.

University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Nursing, 877 Madison Avenue, Room 616, Memphis, TN 38103, USA. vengle@utmem.edu

PURPOSE: To document immediate and short-term biobehavioral effects of therapeutic touch (TT), estimate the magnitude of TT effects, and compare TT effects to placebo responses. DESIGN: A repeated measures, pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design. TT and mimic TT were administered using standardized protocols to 11 adults in a controlled setting. METHODS: Four physiological (total pulse amplitude, blood pressure, pulse, temperature) and three subjective (stress, self-assessment of health, time perception) variables were evaluated over 24 hours. FINDINGS: Total pulse amplitude and time perception decreased significantly immediately after TT intervention, indicating vasoconstriction and time passing "faster," with large and medium effect sizes significantly greater than were placebo responses. Vasodilation, a relaxation response, was expected instead of vasoconstriction. CONCLUSIONS: TT may have adverse and positive outcomes.

Biol Res Nurs. 2002 Oct;4(2):104-14. Related Articles, Links

---------------------------------------------------
The effect of therapeutic touch on agitated behavior and cortisol in persons with Alzheimer's disease.

Woods DL, Dimond M.

College of Nursing at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock 72205, USA. woodsdianalynn@uams.edu

Agitated behavior in persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD) presents a challenge to current interventions. Recent developments in neuroendocrinology suggest that changes in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis alter the responses of persons with AD to stress. Given the deleterious effects of pharmacological interventions in this vulnerable population, it is essential to explore noninvasive treatments for their potential to decrease a hyperresponsiveness to stress and indirectly decrease detrimental cortisol levels. This within-subject, interrupted time-series study was conducted to test the efficacy of therapeutic touch on decreasing the frequency of agitated behavior and salivary and urine cortisol levels in persons with AD. Ten subjects who were 71 to 84 years old and resided in a special care unit were observed every 20 minutes for 10 hours a day, were monitored 24 hours a day for physical activity, and had samples for salivary and urine cortisol taken daily. The study occurred in 4 phases: 1) baseline (4 days), 2) treatment (therapeutic touch for 5 to 7 minutes 2 times a day for 3 days), 3) posttreatment (11 days), and 4) post- "wash-out" (3 days). An analysis of variance for repeated measures indicated a significant decrease in overall agitated behavior and in 2 specific behaviors, vocalization and pacing or walking, during treatment and posttreatment. A decreasing trend over time was notedfor salivary and urine cortisol. Although this study does not provide direct clinical evidence to support dysregulation in the HPA axis, it does suggest that environmental and behavioral interventions such as therapeutic touch have the potential to decrease vocalization and pacing, 2 prevalent behaviors, and may mitigate cortisol levels in persons with AD.

------------------------------------------------
: J Altern Complement Med. 2002 Feb;8(1):33-47. Related Articles, Links

The clinical effectiveness of healing touch.

Wilkinson DS, Knox PL, Chatman JE, Johnson TL, Barbour N, Myles Y, Reel A.

Department of Psychology, Tennessee State University, Nashville 37209-1564, USA. dswilkinson@mindspring.com

OBJECTIVES: (1) to determine the clinical effectiveness of Healing Touch (HT) on variables assumed to be related to health enhancement; (2) to determine whether practitioner training level moderates treatment effectiveness. DESIGN: Mixed-method repeated measures design with quasi-experimental and naturalistic approaches, paired with nomothetic and idiographic analyses. SETTING/LOCATION: Practitioner's offices or client's home. SUBJECTS: Twenty-two (22) clients who had never experienced HT. Interventions: Three treatment conditions: no treatment (NT), HT only (standard HT care), and HT+ (Standard HT care plus music plus guided imagery). OUTCOME MEASURES: Secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) concentrations in saliva, self-reports of stress levels, client perceptions of health enhancement, and qualitative questionnaires about individual effects. RESULTS: Clients of practitioners with more training experienced statistically significant positive sIgA change over the HT treatment series, while clients of practitioners with less experience did not. Clients reported a statistically significant reduction of stress level after both HT conditions. Perceived enhancement of health was reported by 13 of 22 clients (59%). Themes of relaxation, connection, and enhanced awareness were identified in the qualitative analysis of the HT experience. Pain relief was reported by 6 of 11 clients (55%) experiencing pain. CONCLUSIONS: The data support the clinical effectiveness of HT in health enhancement, specifically for raising sIgA concentrations, lowering stress perceptions and relieving pain. The evidence indicates that positive responses were not exclusively as a result of placebo, that is, client beliefs, expectations, and behaviors regarding HT.

--------------------------------------------
1: J Altern Complement Med. 1999 Aug;5(4):367-70. Related Articles, Links

Effects of therapeutic touch on biochemical and mood indicators in women.

Lafreniere KD, Mutus B, Cameron S, Tannous M, Giannotti M, Abu-Zahra H, Laukkanen E.

University of Windsor, Psychology Department, Ontario, Canada. lafren1@uwindsor.ca

Previous research has shown therapeutic touch (TT) to be effective in reducing anxiety and discomfort and promoting relaxation. The present investigation experimentally evaluated the effects of TT on biochemical indicators and moods in a sample of 41 healthy female volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental group who received TT or to a control group who did not receive TT. Pretest and posttest urine samples were collected, and personality and mood inventories were administered across three consecutive monthly sessions. Results indicated that mood disturbance in the experimental group decreased significantly over the course of the three sessions, while the control group increased in mood disturbance over time. Specifically, experimental group participants showed significant reductions in tension, confusion, and anxiety and a significant increase in vigor across sessions. Analyses of the biochemical data indicated that TT produced a significant decrease in levels of nitric oxide in the experimental group by the third TT session. The results of the present investigation have important implications for reducing symptom distress in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 07:43 AM

Steve,

Please address the questions:

In what way did Emily Rosa's mother "scam" the nurses?
Can you provide evidence that "Emily (allegedly) kept turning her hands during some of the trials"?
What are the "improprieties of this study"?
Can you provide evidence that the nurses had to touch the patients?
Has Dolores Krieger or Dora Kunz claimed this? When? Before or after Emily's experiment?
Did any of the nurses in the experiment claim this? When? Before or after Emily's experiment?
Have you read the full Cox analysis?
How were the goalposts moved by Emily's mother before the experiment even started?

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:51 AM

The following more politely renders what I have said above:

brief quote from Nurse Practitioner

Rosa et al.’s much critiqued school project on therapeutic touch attempted to further delimit the complexity of the SEM process to a single element. The therapeutic touch practitioner was supposed to blindly sense the presence (or absence) of Emily Rosa’s hand. The statistical findings for this element were erroneously interpreted as the lack of credibility of therapeutic touch as an intervention. This methodological approach did not reflect a therapeutic touch treatment, or the importance of the practitioner/patient relationship to the process of healing. The project also points out the dangers of reducing SEMs to their individual elements, thus decontextualizing the treatment process. Winstead-Frye and Kijek suggest that future therapeutic research designs should be:

* conducted in real time with ill persons and experienced practitioners;
* developed to more appropriately measure the efficacy of therapeutic touch and other SEMs; and
* address issues of validity and reliability, as well as clearly articulate operational definitions and outcome statements.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 07:53 AM

dmarker

5th October 2003, 08:01 AM

I wonder what the difference is between Emily Rosa's mother and Natalia Lulova's mother is?

Emily's test is pretty simple. Gather people who claim that they can sense energy fields, test them to make sure that they can sense your energy field when they can see you, then test them again when they can't see you.

Pretty simple, either the people can do it or they can't.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yup, Emily's mother scammed the nurses she recruited and they were led to believe their intervention would somehow effect Emily's hands. The experiment was a scam to begin with. There was only one subject-patient and it was Emily who, it is also alleged kept turning her hands during some of the trials. To use a child this way is absolutely beneath contempt. Many would not be saying this if it had stayed at the science fair level, if Emily designed the experiment herself and if it was done on the up and up. This scandal is far from over and I think as the years roll on we will be hearing more about the improprieties of this "study." The key element missing from momma Rosa's study was failure to integrate the word "touch" into the protocol! How unbelievably gulllible the so-called skeptics are when they jumped all over this absurd attempt to impeach TT.

If this experiment had different results all of you would be screaming to the rafters concerning these inadequacies.

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. But to test this in one normal, healthy kid exposing her basically healthy hands, top, bottom and even sideways, was ridiculous.
It did not meet the burden of the claim.

TT healers as well as those who claim to be able to feel areas that are diseased or damaged do one important thing the Rosa study did not do: touch them.

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

Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64.

A nurse-statistician reanalyzes data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study.

Cox T.

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Nursing, Richmond, USA.

This article presents a reanalysis of data used to support the work of Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch (TT) science fair project published as an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1998. The purpose of this article is to take a closer look at the assumptions, data, statistical procedures, and conclusions of the JAMA article. This is accomplished by focusing on (1) the conclusion that there was no overall effect of TT, (2) the conclusion that TT practitioners did not perform better depending on which hand was used, and (3) the assumptions about the capability of Rosa's experiment to validate an existing skill. Reanalysis of the Rosa data suggests contradictions to the authors' conclusions. Based on this reanalysis, the authors' recommendations against the use of TT can and should be challenged because of inappropriate design and analysis as well as incorrect statistical assumptions and conclusions.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 08:12 AM

Dmarker: I wonder what the difference is between Emily Rosa's mother and Natalia Lulova's mother is?

No difference. They are both exploiting their children, and remarkably, Randi was glad to oblige both of them as he interjected himsef into the anti-TT movement (run by Emily's stepfather, Larry Sarner) and backed Rosa as well.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard . CONCLUSIONS: TT may have adverse and positive outcomes.

That pretty much says it all. Another way of putting it would be, "The results were not statistically significant. Outcomes varied randomly."
But that would have been in a real journal, such as JAMA.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Dmarker: I wonder what the difference is between Emily Rosa's mother and Natalia Lulova's mother is?

No difference. They are both exploiting their children, and remarkably, Randi was glad to oblige both of them as he interjected himsef into the anti-TT movement (run by Emily's stepfather, Larry Sarner) and backed Rosa as well.

Why do you mention Randi? Do you stop at nothing in your crusade against skepticism, Steve?

What is the URL of the "anti-TT movement"? Where can I contact them?

Dragon

5th October 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"So, Steve, if TT practitioners can't detect a so-called energy field, how can they perform a "baseline assessment" of it?"

I think it is called "This is where it hurts" Patients voice complaints. I am in agreement that obtaining a diagnosis through the exaggerated claim of detecting changes in the patient's energy field is iffy to say the least but I acknowledged above there are people who claim to be able to do this. This was not the claim, however. Patients enrolling in clinical trials are screened by conventional means or by voicing their complaints. Then the investigator wants to see if the intervention or drug works on them.

Get a bunch of people with carpal tunne syndrome and let an experienced
practitioner test them. Was this a test of diagnostic ability or therpaeutic ability? Momma Rosa's problem she was confounding the two.

Not good enough, Steve. The link I provided was to the NH-PAI which was founded by Dr Krieger and is "the official organization of Therapeutic Touch".

Their policy and procedure (http://www.therapeutic-touch.org/content/policyprocedure.asp) page makes it crystal clear that they claim to be able to "assess" and then "repattern and mobilize" energy fields.
In other words diagnosis then treatment.
If they can't sense the "energy field" in the first place then the whole deck of cards collapses.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 08:37 AM

The following message validates my remarks about Larry Sarner (Emily's step-father's position as well as James Randi' s upcoming role at the time ; Randi also published on this in the J Nurse Practitioner). Read this very carefully. Especially the part where he says he wants applicants that show it doesn't work. This is why laypersons who are not medical scientists or nurses should probaby stay out of this....yes, yes, I know momma L. Rosa is an RN with the Rocky Mountain Skeptics and she has done good work publicizing quckery, some such of which resulted in the suffocation death of a autistic child undergoing attachment or re-birthing therapy).

=============================

Open Challenge from Emily Rosa and family

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

From: Larry Sarner <sarner@ezlink.com>
Subject: simple challenge
I've read with amusement, in the recent digests of this list, the tangle
that list subscribers have gotten into in trying to define a "test" of
Therapeutic Touch or of its practice by real people.

I have been involved with TT for almost 8 years now and have more than a
passing familiarity with it. About 3-1/2 years ago, my stepdaughter
watched a video of Dolores Krieger and other TTPs at work, and asked a
simple question, "I wonder if they can really do that?" Afterwards, she
came up with a simple, yet unquestionably scientifically sound, test of
ability and proceeded to administer it to 21 TTPs. The results gave her an
answer to her original question: "In a word, no."

When we published Emily's experiments in JAMA, along with some analysis of
TT literature, we generalized Emily's question and answer to the following
carefully worded (and quite conservative) conclusion: "To our knowledge,
no other objective, quantitative study involving more than a few TT
practitioners has been published, and no well-designed study demonstrates
any health benefit from TT. These facts, together with our experimental
findings, suggest that TT claims are groundless and that further use of TT
by health professionals is unjustified."

After more than 15 months of controversy, a couple round of letters in JAMA
(the latest a couple of weeks ago), and despite several ex cathedra
pronouncements by Delores Krieger et al., our conclusion has held up. TT
claims remain groundless. The use of TT by health professionals remains
unjustified. Krieger and other TT apologists can blather all they want
about the alleged "parlor-game" inadequacies of Emily's protocol, but at
the moment it, and the conclusion derived in part from it, stands unrefuted
in the literature. They will remain so until someone can produce
persuasive evidence that supports the practice of TT as a "unique and
efficacious modality".

Nothing else will do. Elmer Green's fallacious (and inconclusive)
"copper-wall" experiments aren't going to do it. Innumerable testimonies
of TTPs or their "patients" aren't going to do it, either. Rudolf
Steiner-like ravings against the evils of reductionism, materialism, and
determinism aren't going to make TT any more plausible. Pretending that TT
is too noble an undertaking to muck after Randi's million bucks definitely
doesn't wash. The health-consuming public now has a fixed image of TT as
nurse quackery. We are seeing signs that TT is withering on the vine, and
it is simply because its practitioners do not even attempt to refute the
simple challenge posed to them by a nine- (now twelve-) year-old child.
They are showing themselves up as being close-minded to evidence, objective
reality, and the scientific method.

The problem with the suggestions for testing made in recent threads on this
list is that they've obviously been made by TT proponents who are hedging
their bets. In science you can't do that. You have to go for broke and
let reality tell you that you're wrong when you are. That usually means
conducting a scientific experiment on a falsifiable hypothesis. And that
means that if you believe x causes y, you come up with an experimental
condition where x MUST cause y, then find out if it does. If it doesn't,
you're wrong. Real scientists think this way all the time. Emily thought
this way at age 9.

THAT'S the kind of test you all on this list should be trying to come up
with. So let me cut to the quick. I have a challenge to put out to anyone
on this list (or anywhere else) who thinks TT is a unique and efficacious
modality, and who is open-minded to evidence, objective reality, and the
scientific method:

Please publicly state, in clear and unambiguous terms, ANY objectively
observable evidence which would convince you that Therapeutic Touch is NOT
a real phenomenon, or that it can NOT be practiced by living human beings.
Then you, I, Emily, mutually acceptable outside scientists, and perhaps
even James Randi, within the limits of our financial resources, will
devise, conduct, and objectively report the results of an experiment to
obtain such evidence. If we obtain the experimental evidence sought, you
will then be on public record that TT is not real or cannot be practiced,
as the case may be. Meanwhile, the significance of any inability on our
part to obtain such experimental evidence depends upon the nature of the
evidence that you yourself have posited; whether our inability qualifies
for you to get Randi's million depends upon a prior, separate agreement
with Randi.

Any takers? Or do we get bragging rights that no one is confident enough
in their beliefs about the reality of TT or its practice to put it to the
test, or alternatively are not so open-minded that they can think of
anything that can change their minds?

Ball's in your court.

Larry Sarner
Chairman, National Therapeutic Touch Study Group
nttsg@ezlink.com

Pyrrho

5th October 2003, 08:42 AM

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2523.html

Energy healing

Biofield, or energy healing, is described by its proponents as "one of the oldest forms of healing known to humankind."14 Theories related to this practice involve transfer of energy from healer to patient in unknown ways, either from a supernatural entity or by manipulating the body's own "energy fields." Over 25 terms are used in various cultures to describe this life force. Biofield practitioners incorporate a holistic focus into therapy, and promote their methods as useful for stress and general improvement of health; relief of pain, edema, and acceleration of wound and fracture healing; improvement in digestion, appetite, and various emotional states; and treatment of conditions such as eating disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, and pre-menstrual syndrome.

Some unique conditions are "diagnosed" by biofield practitioners, such as "accumulated tension" and "congested energy" that, when released, supposedly lead to improved health. A common form of this therapy is used by nurses, and is called "therapeutic touch." It involves moving the hands over (but not in direct contact with) the patient's body either to create a general state of well-being by enhancing "energy flow" in the subject, or to release "accumulated tension" and induce balance and harmony. At least one school of nursing has demanded that its faculty cease teaching these modalities as part of their curriculum (personal communication, John Renner, MD).

Therapies that combine manipulation and biofield therapy include "network chiropractic spinal analysis," which combines soft-tissue chiropractic and applications of the biofield, followed by conventional chiropractic treatment; "craniosacral therapy," an offshoot of osteopathic medicine involving manipulation of cranial and/or sacral bones to relieve "restrictions" in motion of these bones that are thought to help persons with seizures, immune disorders, learning disabilities, and assorted other conditions; and "polarity therapy," in which touch, energy field manipulation, and other modalities correct distortions in one's "energy anatomy."15

This is one dangerous problem with "therapeutic touch". While it may be true that such attention to a patient may result in psychological benefits (in other words, a placebo effect), the practice is founded in unproven pseudoscientific religious beliefs. In short, it is basically 19th-century spiritualism. Because of this, TT is a direct contradiction to the proven science-based medical practices it is supposed to complement.

The practitioners of TT use the typical excuses we've heard from other panderers of the paranormal:

http://www.camline.org/therapiesPractitioners/therapeutic_touch/description.html

Some of the difficulty experienced in obtaining evidence of effect may relate to the fundamental philosophy of TT, of being partly a healing art as well as a science (34), with the implication that it's outcome is unpredictable (35). Proponents have suggested that there needs to be a different approach to assessing effect in a healing discipline such as TT (e.g. 7). However, TT needs more methodologically robust clinical trials showing effect on order to meet current standards for evidence-based practice.
...
Some practitioners have speculated that it may be possible to "overload" a patient's energy field by too much treatment, potentially causing hyperactivity, irritability, increased pain or anxiety, and Kreiger has said that no session should be longer than 25 minutes (6, 36).

Speculation. Excuses. Untestable hypotheses. Uniquely special easier conditions. Lack of definitive studies based on accepted standards of evidence. The same routine, over and over again.

These people have no business treating patients.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 08:44 AM

It would seem that Steve is going full steam right now. He cannot stop for even a second to answer some really important questions about the very serious allegations he has made.

Perhaps he thinks he can drown people with snippets from his beloved Google. Perhaps he thinks nobody will notice that he doesn't answer the questions.

Perhaps Steve also believes in fairytales...

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

That pretty much says it all. Another way of putting it would be, "The results were not statistically significant. Outcomes varied randomly."
But that would have been in a real journal, such as JAMA.

And what dream world do you live in? DO you believe that conventional medicine does NOT have adverse and variable outcomes as well? Do you think conventional medicine wins them all?

I am afraid there are a lot of people whose bodies are in cemetaries who, if they wanted to, could testify to the reality of that. This is not an excuse, it is reality.

Pyrrho

5th October 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And what dream world do you live in? DO you not believe that conventional medicine does not have adverse and variable outcomes as well? Do you think conventional medicine wins them all?
I am afraid there are a lot of people whose bodies are in cemetaries who, if they wanted to, could testify otherwise.
Yes, people have died from conventional medicine. Drugs have been removed from the market; pharmaceutical companies have had to pay huge settlements; doctors have killed people by making mistakes; and so it goes. So-called alternative medicine has its share of directly-attributable deaths, too.

Conventional medicine must show safety and efficacy through exhaustive clinical trials. Effects must be shown to be consistently statistically significant; they must be replicable; the studies must adhere to accepted standards of evidence; otherwise, it just won't wash.

Now, where's the properly-conducted, randomized, double-blind, clinical evidence that TT works as advertised? No anecdotes, please.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2003, 09:11 AM

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SteveGrenard
"The following message validates my remarks about Larry Sarner (Emily's step-father's position as well as James Randi' s upcoming role at the time ; Randi also published on this in the J Nurse Practitioner). Read this very carefully. Especially the part where he says he wants applicants that show it doesn't work. This is why laypersons who are not medical scientists or nurses should probaby stay out of this..."

Who says he wants applicants who show it doesn't work? Randi?
And if you think that I, who is neither a medical scientist nor a nurse, couldn't test to see if these "experienced practitioners" can detect an energy field around a human body, then you are hopelessly naive.
The reason Emily was able to do the original experiment was that these TT people agreed to be tested by a nine year old. No one who makes those claims around here was willing to be tested by NYASk.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 09:31 AM

Corey .... GO BACk. Read down a bit in Sarner's post and then tell me what it says. Do I have to be redundent and re-quote it here?

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 09:37 AM

Okay Corey here it is, cut and pasted from the previous page:

Larry Sarner writes:
Please publicly state, in clear and unambiguous terms, ANY objectively
observable evidence which would convince you that Therapeutic Touch is NOT
a real phenomenon, or that it can NOT be practiced by living human beings.
Then you, I, Emily, mutually acceptable outside scientists, and perhaps
even James Randi, within the limits of our financial resources, will
devise, conduct, and objectively report the results of an experiment to
obtain such evidence.

Dragon

5th October 2003, 11:15 AM

Steve,

All Sarner is doing is challenging TT practitioners to say what evidence would falsify their belief.
If there is such evidence then appropriate experiments can be devised.
I would add - if there is no such evidence then TT is an unscientific, faith-based process.

Please answer my earlier question -

"If TT practitioners can't detect a so-called energy field, how can they perform a "baseline assessment" of it?"

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 11:34 AM

I agree their ability to diagnose is dubious with variable outcomes. I personally do not accept this. I believe that palpation can be used to diagnose some conditions when performed by a properly trained person (physician, nurse, physician's assistant, registered nurse practitioner, respiratory therapist).

Are you now denying the use of touch/palpation as a diagnosic tool? Tapping the chest and belly with ones fingers also reveals the presence of masses or air. Are you denying this is not useful? Personally, and I have never said otherwise, and I have reiterated this over and over again (irrespective of what Krieger and her friends say) that diagnosis and treatment are separate modalities.

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

Therapeutic = treatment

Touch = actually touching the subject

Linda Rosa's study was testing a different claim, the diagnostic portion and assigning the results to the entire field. As Cox stated it decontextualizes the subject. It was done with a single subject: Emily Rosa, a healthy child who was not a patient, had no abnormal conditions involving her hands and therefore was a baseline against which there was no variation to detect. Stop and think about that flaw in the design of this study.

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. There are 454 citations in Medline so it will take me a week to study each of the abstracts carefully. So far I have found studies which falsify TT as well as validate it. I am discarding rhetorical responses, opinion pieces and articles which are not controled studies. We are back to the same you said-she said-they said argument we had over homeopathy. There are both pro and con studies.

Bottom line, it is I agree important that any modalities such as TT or homeopathy are not used to the exclusion of conventional treatment (which sorta makes it impossible to validate them insofar as outcomes are concerned -- so you have to design studies using conventional therapy with and without the complementary ones and see which group does better...which then leaves you open to false or real assertions of a placebo effect since it would be impossible for a test subject to not know they are being touched).

I also stated, repeatedly, that I believe that advances in sensor technology will do far more to diagnose problems manifesting alterations in the biofield
than any human could do. In otherwords, handheld scanners a la Star Trek are probably not so far off.
We already have non-invasive technologies that measure oxygen saturations (in the blood but without blood), CO2 levels in the blood (but without blood) and even cutaneous electrodes that measure blood pH but without blood). Extending such technologies to EEG, ECG and EMG morphologies will be the next baby step in that direction. Linking biofield changes to actual confirmed diagnoses, including those unearthed at autopsy, will be a means to validate the technologies that detect and illustrate the biofield potentials.

Dragon

5th October 2003, 11:50 AM

Steve,

So, we are now to accept your definition of Therapeutic Touch?
A definition completely at odds with that of the body established by the inventor of TT?
Read the link I posted earlier -" Hands are usually held about 2-4 inches away from the individual’s body and are moved in a head to feet direction." No mention of palpitation in their procedure.

In your words There are both pro and con studies.
- so post a link to just one pro-TT study (preferably double-blind randomised, controlled and peer-reviewed).

Oh, and stop blathering as in your last paragraph.

Marc

5th October 2003, 11:56 AM

hehehehe.... not very surprising really. Steve gets called on some absurdity, and he responds with villification, conspiracy theories (Emily's mom planed it all I tell you!!) slander, attributing motives and actions that he can in no way support. Oh and of course ignoring any real pertinant questions or evidence.

Seen it before, just as how he claims Randi cheats on his challenge, but when pressed ends up spewing a bunch of nonsence and backing up to the statement he is sure Randi would cheat if anyone passed the preliminary test.

Kudos to those who have the patience to actuall read all of his excuses and diversions.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Marc
hehehehe.... not very surprising really. Steve gets called on some absurdity, and he responds with villification, conspiracy theories (Emily's mom planed it all I tell you!!) slander, attributing motives and actions that he can in no way support. Oh and of course ignoring any real pertinant questions or evidence.

Seen it before, just as how he claims Randi cheats on his challenge, but when pressed ends up spewing a bunch of nonsence and backing up to the statement he is sure Randi would cheat if anyone passed the preliminary test.

Kudos to those who have the patience to actuall read all of his excuses and diversions.

Someday, somebody is going to write a book about Steve Grenard. There is plenty of material for even the most ridiculous National Enquirer-style story....

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 12:17 PM

Let's make one thing clear: I am not refuting the person (Krieger) who you credit with founding TT. Other authors have done so when they refuted Rosa's study. I am presenting their arguments. Also let's get something else clear: Krieger, regardless of what your reference asserts (which is from her own writings I guess oh, no, the AMA, of course) is certainly not the person who first discovered this or established a protcool. As we have read elsewhere the claim has been around for hundreds, no, thousands of years and long before Krieger got involved.

This is not my definition. It belongs in any dictionary. Look up therapeutic and touch.

I am not here to defend Krieger or discredit her. She is entitled to say what she wants. The Linda and Emily mom and daughter TT study did not, for the last time, touch on (pun intended) either therapy or touch! It was a farce of the highest order and how the skeptics, in their scramble to promote it, overlooked such a basic error is beyond me. But why should we not be surprised? The study should have been titled "Detection of the Biofield through at a Distance by Human Practitioners." Results: 50% got it, 50% of the trials didn't. Exactly chance. Since Rosa mom mislabeled the title of the study, she loses all credibility with me. Exactly chance. One or two trials could have been fudged t bring it down to that. Who oversaw this experiment? Where was it conducted? What scientists supervised it? Or was it just a presentation at a science fair? Who were the practitioners that were impeached and why haven't we had any feedback from them? Did some practitioners have higher scores than others? This would be VERY important. Hard questions for Linda Rosa. Why do some critics think she will never answer all of them. Well she hasnt answered any of them.

This study was a scam from a mom who is a vocal and active member of the Rocky Mtns Skeptics and her own health quackwatch group. She perceived a lot of problems in Colorado, especially with the birthing therapists and the death of an autistic child (Candace) there. She overlooked the fact that medical errors kill many more people than birthing therapy (but the culprits do not go to jail, they get sued and get off any criminal liability). I am not saying this wasn't a tragic ocurrence, but clearly she feels it is necessary to fight her perception of quackery by any means possible. It is dishonest. Period. I said it before, I will say it again. Her study was a misnomer, a scam and a poor example for skeptics to hang their hat on. Give me a week and I will select out of the 454 citations both pro and con studies to back up the fact that TT, true TT therapeutic + touch, is still not a complete fraud. There are 50K nurses in a health care environment doing this in the US alone. I guess that really annoys Linda Rosa. And nobody has died from it.

Dragon

5th October 2003, 12:50 PM

The Linda and Emily mom and daughter TT study did not, for the last time, touch on (pun intended) either therapy or touch! It was a farce of the highest order and how the skeptics, in their scramble to promote it, overlooked such a basic error is beyond me.

An "error" also apparently overlooked by the TT practitioners who took part in the study.

They claimed that they could detect the "energy field".
They agreed to the test.
They performed no better than chance.
Your attempt to use Linda Rosa's membership of a quackwatch group as a refutation of the test is a pathetic argumentum ad hominem.

The clock is ticking on you presenting a reputable study supportive of TT.

Yahzi

5th October 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Someday, somebody is going to write a book about Steve Grenard. There is plenty of material for even the most ridiculous National Enquirer-style story....
They already have. It's called the DSM-III.

:D :D :D

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 01:04 PM

This is an ad hominem of the worst kind and I am reporting it to the moderator. Please delete this reference at once.

You see Yahzi and that goes for Larsen's quote as well, if people can't post here for fear of these kinds of attacks, it certainly limits discourse here as Ed is trying to do with his thread on references. I do believe I am dealing with the worst kind of bigotry when we see posts like this. What do others think?

Thank you.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 01:08 PM

Steve,

Let's make one thing clear: Nobody gives a flying fig about you "presenting" anybody's arguments. We are old and wise enough to use Google. And I sincerely hope that the people in question do not need you to present their arguments, because you do them much disservice, by screwing up so royally every bleedin' time!

If you want to argue a point, do it from you own point of view. Argue your own case, not somebody else's.

You raise more accusations than you are willing to prove. Steve, you are getting out of control.

This thread is a keeper. Don't post anything you will later regret. There's plenty already.

CFLarsen

5th October 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is an ad hominem of the worst kind and I am reporting it to the moderator. Please delete this reference at once.

You see Yahzi and that goes for Larsen's quote as well, if people can't post here for fear of these kinds of attacks, it certainly limits discourse here as Ed is trying to do with his thread on references. I do believe I am dealing with the worst kind of bigotry when we see posts like this. What do others think?

Thank you.

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.

Pyrrho

5th October 2003, 03:35 PM

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.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 03:42 PM

And it already has as is your own bias in considering this matter.

Pyrrho

5th October 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And it already has as is your own bias in considering this matter.
I now recuse myself from any further involvement in this discussion, and from any further moderating activities regarding this thread, and from any further moderating activities regarding Steve Grenard.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 03:49 PM

Yes folks. There you have it. Nobody wants dissent or controversy or dissenting opinion on this board. In order to do that, Mr. Ed is already weasling the rules to suit some preconceived notions of how references are given and Mr. Pyrrho, who is also biased, has decided it is okay to libel people by saying they can be found in the DSM. By the way, IV is out Yatzi.
And by the way Hoyt, Sagan wrote Demon Haunted World, not Gould.

These are the inelligent leaders you follow so blindly while allowing them to violate the board's own rules against harassment.

I see no one has seen fit to speak up on this matter. So I know you are all a bunch of cowards and are afraid of the same treatment received by myself. It was as I predicted. This behavior is designed to quell dialogue and debate. This board has quickly deteriorated into a useless rubbish heap of medoccrity.

So keep on preaching to your own choir. It should get real boring real quickly.

If the offending posts by Larsen and Yahzi are not removed, and they have been preserved privately (Larsen thinks he is the only one that could do this), I will drape them all over the internet demonstrating how uncivilized, biased and rude you bunch really are.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

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

:D :D :D
No makin fun of the Delusional Personality Disorder, type 5, section 1, Sector D.
I understand that the DSM IV will define " woo woo" as, "being. like, out of it? Out to brunch? "

Jeff Corey

5th October 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
a useless rubbish heap of medoccrity....

... I will drape them all over the internet demonstrating how uncivilized, biased and rude you bunch really are.]
Sacre bleu, Shirley, you must be joking!
People were overly kind to you here.

5th October 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes folks. There you have it. Nobody wants dissent or controversy or dissenting opinion on this board. In order to do that, Mr. Ed is already weasling the rules to suit some preconceived notions of how references are given

Please. I hardly think that asking people to explain what they post or take a position on same is reducing debate or controversy. And it is not weaseling anything, it is a statement of my dissatisfaction with certain types of posts. And yes, I have an opinion on what works best. So?

BTox

5th October 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
We are back to the same you said-she said-they said argument we had over homeopathy. There are both pro and con studies.

But you once again fail to acknowledge that the con studies out-weigh the pro, especially when quality of the clinical trials are accounted for. Plus you again dismiss the fact that there is no plausible mode of action for homeopathy, or therapeutic touch.

BTox

5th October 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
We already have non-invasive technologies that measure oxygen saturations (in the blood but without blood), CO2 levels in the blood (but without blood) and even cutaneous electrodes that measure blood pH but without blood).

We do? I'd like to see information on this claim.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:21 PM

LOL. I and thousands of other people in critical care medicine have been employing such technologies for years.

Here's some key words for you since I am told people don't like me cutting and pasting:

1. Transcutaneous CO2
2. Transcutaneous O2
3. Transcutaneous pH

all aka TcPCO2, TCPO2, etc. mfg: Radiometer (Sweden)

4. Pulse Oximetry - mfg: many companies

gives arterial Oxygen Saturation non-invasively.

5. Capnometry (Capnography)=ETCo2 which at point max is equiv to alveolar CO2 which is equiv to arterial PCO2
Mfg: Oridion (Jersalem, Israel)

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:30 PM

Btox: But you once again fail to acknowledge that the con studies out-weigh the pro, especially when quality of the clinical trials are accounted for. Plus you again dismiss the fact that there is no plausible mode of action for homeopathy, or therapeutic touch.

Although there are scientists seeking and developing plausible modes of action, here are more than a few biased people here who think this is a waste of time, including I believe, you.

The fact is there are pro and con studies, and tens of thousands of anecdotal accounts, more than enough to stir the pot for more and better research. This is the same tired argument used for any pro studies that do not conform to the biases of one side or, for that matter, the other. Fifty thousand registered nurses in the U.S. are estimated to practice some form of TT in hospital settings. 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.

I thought we already agreed that studies up to FDA protocols would settle the matter for homeopathy.

I am personally not interested in either but I am interested in making such information known so that those who are could benefit from knowing both sides of the argument. Apparently there are efforts here to quell the dissenting side and to stifle debate by using pretty low ad hominems and character assasination.

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.

Jeff Corey

5th October 2003, 07:30 PM

Grenard.
What about your claim that only medical scientists or nurses could evaluate TT?

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 07:33 PM

What about plumbers practicing psychology? Or psychologists performing procotologic exams?

How about brain surgeons doing cardiac bypasses? The people trained and experienced in any field are logically the most competent to test it. This is a no brainer.

Denise

5th October 2003, 07:41 PM

As this thread has been reported, and reported again, I feel I should post a response. Only Hal can deal with this matter now, especially now that legal action has been threatened. Hal is quite busy right now. I am sure that when he is able to, he will respond. I'm sure that Mr. Grenard would also consider me biased as well, so I also recuse myself from taking action on this matter. Thank you.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 08:33 PM

Excuse me Denise but I did not threaten legal action. I politely asked the harassing, libelous and insulting post to be removed. I asked moderator Pyrrho to do so. Moderator Pyrrho agreed it was a base insult, etc. but felt that it was not a violation of the rules against harassment and rudeness. Do you feel likewise?

Recuse yourselves all you want. I am still demanding the removal of both Larsen's and Yatzhi's offensive posts. The only threat I made regarding this is to take this public over the net as yet another example of how dissent is quelled at JREF through character assasination and ad hominem attacks... ad hominems attacks Mr. Larsen has agreed to stop but apparently is finding it impossible to control imself with respect to these.

I have never once accused Mr. or Ms. Yahzi of being mentally ill and I have never suggested he look himself up in the DSM. The fact that he thought it was necessary to do so to me is not at all funny.

Denise

5th October 2003, 08:47 PM

Steve, mayhaps I assumed too much. You called the post libelous and said you may have to take other action. I assumed that you meant legal action. If I assumed wrong I apologize.

The only person who can deal with this type of issue is Hal. And, as you may know, his wife is hospitalized fighting cancer that the doctors have said is terminal. She has undergone renal failure and a series of small strokes. Hal posted about this in the flame war section so it is forum knowledge. He also recently lost his father.

I'm sure that when he has a chance he will address your grievances.

SteveGrenard

5th October 2003, 09:04 PM

I am fully aware of Hal's problems and do not expect him to suspend his problems to deal with anything as trivial as this by comparison.

Steve

Dragon

5th October 2003, 11:46 PM

So Steve, back to the topic -

Have you found a decent pro-TT study yet?

Martin

6th October 2003, 12:01 AM

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

SteveGrenard

6th October 2003, 04:07 AM

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.

Marc

6th October 2003, 04:18 AM

If I recall correctly didn't Steve before threaten legal action and never followed through with it despite people inviting it?

Maybe this is a way of implying it without having to be taken to task when it does not materialize?

Say Claus, you probably have enough information to write up the Debate Modes of Steve G. You have 'flooding with links that may or may not pertain to the subject', 'whiney victem', 'evil anti-paranormal conspiracy theory', 'I know everything even when I wasn't there', and 'threatening legal action' modes. :D

Martin

6th October 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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 citationsYes, indeed. I missed that, and for that I apologise. I also know you saidOn these pages you will find serious pro and con articles on TTPresumably, you would not have said this if you had not already identified at least one serious pro article. You also saidSo far I have found studies which falsify TT as well as validate itSo, you ought to be in a position to answer Dragon's query quite easily. This: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. is simply absurd.

Prester John

6th October 2003, 04:33 AM

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?

Dragon

6th October 2003, 04:36 AM

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.

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.
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.

hal bidlack

6th October 2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Martinm
Of course not. Why do you think he's whining so much?

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

hal

hal bidlack

6th October 2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

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

hal

Jaggy Bunnet

6th October 2003, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Since Rosa mom mislabeled the title of the study, she loses all credibility with me.

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?

hal bidlack

6th October 2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
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.

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

hal bidlack

6th October 2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

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.

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

hal

hal bidlack

6th October 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

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

:D :D :D

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

hal

Martin

6th October 2003, 05:43 AM

<sigh>

Hal, I'm sorry you had to get dragged into this.

Psiload

6th October 2003, 06:14 AM

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.

Martin

6th October 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Psiload
you're (once again) trying to force the square peg of reality, into the round hole that is your personal belief system...no. I will be strong. I will resist.

SteveGrenard

6th October 2003, 06:25 AM

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.

Psiload

6th October 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

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

Steve?

Steve?

Dang, he took his ball with him.

Garrette

6th October 2003, 07:12 AM

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.

6th October 2003, 07:18 AM

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.

TruthSeeker

6th October 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Prester John
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?

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

Jeff Corey

6th October 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
...Steve is one of the more intelligent and educated posters on this board...
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.

arcticpenguin

6th October 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
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.

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

Marc

6th October 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

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.

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.

TruthSeeker

6th October 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

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

Not a word.

I will certainly post whatever I may receive.

hal bidlack

6th October 2003, 10:26 AM

Steve,

On the assumption you are still reading this thread, I respond to your attack (and thank you for your kind words) with this.

I reject the claim that rules are applied unfairly. Rather, it is my refusal to limit speech that has caused you difficulty. And given that on your old forum, two dozen folks were banned for being JREF forum members, I suggest you examine the crystalline nature of your walls before chucking rocks.

hal

CFLarsen

6th October 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If the offending posts by Larsen and Yahzi are not removed, and they have been preserved privately (Larsen thinks he is the only one that could do this), I will drape them all over the internet demonstrating how uncivilized, biased and rude you bunch really are.

Awww, Steve....here's a candy bar, please stop crying... http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/crybaby.gif

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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,

Excuse me? I can't speak for Yahzi, but I am not scared of your threats, Steve. Whatever you feel like doing, do it.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
See you in a week with the results.

Don't forget that agreement you wanted to give to me to sign, which you promised me...oh, last month.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

I know that you consider asking for evidence "harrassment". You had the same opinion on SurvivalScience.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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 ....

http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/crybaby.gif

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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'm a crybaby, Steve? I'm not the one who shut my eyes to reality.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

Nobody is quelling any dissent here, Steve. You, on the other hand, was very busy quelling skepticism on your own board.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

Ah, but despite your numerous reports, not one of them was regarded as valid.

I know you will be back, Steve. This is the only place where people actually listen to you, even though it's for very different reasons than you think.

TLN

6th October 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nobody is quelling any dissent here, Steve. You, on the other hand, was very busy quelling skepticism on your own board.

I remember this clearly; dissenting opinions were simply banned.

Ian Osborne

6th October 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by TLN
I remember this clearly; dissenting opinions were simply banned.

Not always - I was never banned

I joined the Survival Science board just after the mass banning of JREF members - were they really only banned for posting here? I was certainly allowed to post sceptical opinions there, and I wasn't the only one doing it. I found Steve Grenard to be woefully thin-skinned and quick to take offence, and the moderators had an annoying habit of intervening in threads to protect woo-woos' sensibilities rather than uphold the rules, but I saw very little actual censorship.

CFLarsen

6th October 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I joined the Survival Science board just after the mass banning of JREF members - were they really only banned for posting here?

No. They were banned because they were simply on JREF, too. Some had never even posted.

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I was certainly allowed to post sceptical opinions there, and I wasn't the only one doing it. I found Steve Grenard to be woefully thin-skinned and quick to take offence, and the moderators had an annoying habit of intervening in threads to protect woo-woos' sensibilities rather than uphold the rules, but I saw very little actual censorship.

I was on the SS board almost since its beginning, and I have witnessed many examples of censorship. Steve himself stated that asking for evidence was tantamount to harrassing people.

Rolfe

6th October 2003, 02:13 PM

Sheesh, I go away for the weekend, and look what Steve gets into! Just the same as the homoeopathy thread - staunchly ignore every direct question which might embarrass him, post dozens of statistically-suspect links, and subvert the argument from the basic question.

It's simple fact that "Therapeutic Touch" doesn't involve actual touch as we understand it, the practitioners claim to be touching the aura. Of course you can both diagnose and treat if you actually touch the patient - palpation and massage are standard medical techniques and nothing to do with TT.

Also, it is not necessary that actual therapy be involved in a scientific test of a therapeutic claim. Lots of basic research (especially animal studies) involves isolating particular principles of the method under test and looking at these individually- there are no sick people being helped there. In just the same way, Emily isolated a specific part of the TT claim (the ability to sense the aura in the first place), and looked to see if there was any evidence for that.

The so-called refutations I've seen of this study have been ridiculous - including one claim that the person who designs the study should not be the one who carries it out. In that case, nobody's PhD is valid, because the whole idea there is to be able to design your own approach, then do it. I wish I could just have gone to bed leaving someone else to sit up all night recording and sampling for my experiments, on the grounds that as I'd designed the studies, I shouldn't be the one to do them. I don't think my supervisors or the university would have been very impressed though.

The fact is that the practitioners who agreed to participate in the test also agreed that they could do what was being tested for - that is sense the aura. It was only after the null results were revealed that we started to hear that sensing the aura wasn't necessary. Funny the people involved didn't explain that to Emily before she started!

The letter from Emily's stepfather regarding suggestions for proving that TT doesn't work is also simply good science. That's how you do it. You put up a hypothesis, THEN YOU TRY TO REFUTE IT. If you can't, you may be on to something. If nobody else can either after you've published it, you're almost certainly on to something. If the TT proponents were anything like honest, they'd subject their theory to that sort of test without having to be asked.

Steve seems to have a deep need to believe in the weird and the inexplicable, or at least to have these possibilities kept open and not refuted. Personally, I find him a gross irritation, because he simply won't look an argument he doesn't like in the face. I certainly hope arguments here are challenged rigorously, but if Steve goes away I won't cry , because rigorous just isn't in his vocabulary.

Rolfe.

Edited to add the bit I forgot about.

arcticpenguin

6th October 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Steve,

On the assumption you are still reading this thread, I respond to your attack (and thank you for your kind words) with this.

I reject the claim that rules are applied unfairly. Rather, it is my refusal to limit speech that has caused you difficulty. And given that on your old forum, two dozen folks were banned for being JREF forum members, I suggest you examine the crystalline nature of your walls before chucking rocks.

hal
Glass is not crystalline, but since it's off-topic I'll let it slide this time. ;)

BTox

6th October 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
LOL. I and thousands of other people in critical care medicine have been employing such technologies for years.

I was really interested in the transcutaneous pH measurement without sampling blood. Not surprisingly, I could find no references to any such device. You are probably thinking of electrodes that are sampling intercellular fluid and using that measurement to approximate blood pH.

Sure it is possible to determine CO2 and O2 in blood by directly analyzing these gases as they diffuse from skin capillaries via direct contact electrodes. My point was conducting these measurements via a "Star Trek scanner" waved over the body is beyond the realm of possibility.

BTW, you say "I have been employing..." which connotes you have conducted these diagnostics yourself - are you in the medical field? I'm sure you've said you are not a doctor, so are you a technician or nurse? Just curious...

CFLarsen

6th October 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by BTox
BTW, you say "I have been employing..." which connotes you have conducted these diagnostics yourself - are you in the medical field? I'm sure you've said you are not a doctor, so are you a technician or nurse? Just curious...

Steve is an administrator at Staten Island University Hospital. He's a pencil pusher in the sleep department. He also writes books on toads and alligators.

He has absolutely no scientific or technological knowledge. E.g., he believes that electrical resistance is measured in Volts and that data cannot be extracted from an optical disk. He has never heard of the Inverse Square Law, one of the most basic scientific laws of the universe.

Steve also has no concept of the most basic atomic models, something even high school students have.

Rolfe

6th October 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Steve is an administrator at Staten Island University Hospital. He's a pencil pusher in the sleep department.

Oh, I really hope he doesn't come back, his total inability to comprehend a point of fact had me close to gnawing my own leg off. However, to what effect does he push the pencils? How come simply being around scientific medicine hasn't rubbed some sort of sense on to him?

Rolfe.

Prester John

6th October 2003, 03:17 PM

Ethics commitees :)

The whole subject of medical ethics is as you suggest truthseeker hugely complicated and worthy of discussion, perhaps not in this thread tho :)

I wonder sometimes if proponents of alternative therapies are aware of the amount of thought and examination that go into medical research. To treat a patient with something that may not work ( or be as effective as normal treatment) is a huge responcibility and not a decision that is or should be taken lightly.

The paltry number of poor papers offered by alternative medicine activists are nothing when compared to the amount of reasearch that goes into real medicine.

An argument that at worst alternative therapies are no worse than a placebo is also misplaced. How can you treat a patient with a placebo, by defintion it has no effect other than in the mind of the patient. How can a responcible doctor prescribe such a treatment. Simply he cannot.

(NB i am using alternative therapy in a general way and do not rule out that there may be active ingredients that have yet to be "discovered" and used in medicine)

BTox

6th October 2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Steve is an administrator at Staten Island University Hospital. He's a pencil pusher in the sleep department. He also writes books on toads and alligators.

He has absolutely no scientific or technological knowledge. E.g., he believes that electrical resistance is measured in Volts and that data cannot be extracted from an optical disk. He has never heard of the Inverse Square Law, one of the most basic scientific laws of the universe.

Steve also has no concept of the most basic atomic models, something even high school students have.

Figured as much. So even his claim that "I and thousands of other people in critical care medicine have been employing such technologies for years." was bogus...

BTox

6th October 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

I thought we already agreed that studies up to FDA protocols would settle the matter for homeopathy.

I am personally not interested in either but I am interested in making such information known so that those who are could benefit from knowing both sides of the argument. Apparently there are efforts here to quell the dissenting side and to stifle debate by using pretty low ad hominems and character assasination.

No, that was your agreement. I'm completely convinced based on the published clinical evidence and absurdity of the mode of action that homeopathy is nothing but placebo medicine. I only said that homeopathic remedy manufacturers should be held to the same standard as ethical drug manufacturers, which would result in them being finally yanked off the market once and for all.

hal bidlack

7th October 2003, 10:57 AM

This thread has been reported, repeatedly.

The reportee demands that statements he/she deems to be false be removed.

I decline that request. The best solution to bad information is more good information. If the person feels the posts are in error, he/she is invited to provide evidence, place the person on ignore, or or disengage from the discussion. I have myself been called quite a number of things in various threads here and elsewhere, but I never demanded that other folks be censored. Such censorship will not occur here. Additionally, I am not amused by the not-too-well veiled threats of legal action toward the JREF and others.

Thick skins are required for this forum, as the rules explain, debates get energetic.

hal

7th October 2003, 01:43 PM

Hal, Denese and I are still reeling from the energetic lawsuit started by Steve 2 years ago. Similarly, I live in fear of being blinded by Bethke (I believe that I am #2 on his list, after Randi and before Harter).

Have courage, my son.

CFLarsen

7th October 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Hal, Denese and I are still reeling from the energetic lawsuit started by Steve 2 years ago. Similarly, I live in fear of being blinded by Bethke (I believe that I am #2 on his list, after Randi and before Harter).

Hey!! I was part of that lawsuit, too! I still have the posts from Steve to prove it.

Of course, Steve claims they don't exist.... :)

7th October 2003, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Hey!! I was part of that lawsuit, too! I still have the posts from Steve to prove it.

Of course, Steve claims they don't exist.... :)

Shoot you are correct!! Didn't he back off of you pretty quick? I still don't get poor old Denise.

Jeff Corey

7th October 2003, 03:56 PM

I was the recipient of threats also. I don't want to publicize the details, but it came to nothing.
The person who characterized that person as "intelligent" was missing a few cues about the stability of his other behavior.

Rolfe

7th October 2003, 04:37 PM

Don't knock it - it looks as if he might really have gone away. :)

Rolfe (the ever-optimistic).

7th October 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe

Rolfe (the ever-optimistic).

Did you play a Viking in the 13th Warrior?

Dennis Storhøi .... Herger the Joyous
Daniel Southern .... Edgtho the Silent
John DeSantis .... Ragnar the Dour
Clive Russell .... Helfdane the Fat
Mischa Hausserman .... Rethel the Archer
Oliver Sveinall .... Haltaf the Boy
Asbjørn 'Bear' Riis .... Halga the Wise
Richard Bremmer .... Skeld the Superstitious
Tony Curran .... Weath the Musician
Albie Woodington .... Hyglak the Quarrelsome

We also have

Claus the Patient
Ed the God
Steve the Credulous
Hal the Mighty
Denise the Cute
Luci the ?
Skeptic the Impatient
Randi the Abrupt
De_Bunk the Wino
Hoyt the Acerbic

And many, many more.

Jeff Corey

7th October 2003, 05:48 PM

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

Garrette

7th October 2003, 09:29 PM

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

9th October 2003, 09:27 AM

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/13/1005?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%22therapeutic+touch%22&searchid=1065716872440_4480&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

9th October 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
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

9th October 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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

9th October 2003, 12:19 PM

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

9th October 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by BNiles
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. :p

Quasi

9th October 2003, 02:55 PM

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

9th October 2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Marc

nope, totally different.

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

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

Rolfe

9th October 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Quasi
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

9th October 2003, 05:32 PM

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

9th October 2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by 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.

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

9th October 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
:...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

9th October 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by dmarker

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

9th October 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

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

9th October 2003, 11:25 PM

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

10th October 2003, 04:20 AM

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.

:roll:

BillHoyt

10th October 2003, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by 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?"

"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 (http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~wbrewer/goodguys.html)

Cheers,

BNiles

10th October 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Marc

nope, totally different.

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

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. :D

BNiles

10th October 2003, 06:48 AM

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.

Marc

10th October 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by BNiles
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.

The explination for that is for the photograph the leaf is pressed between glass plates. After it is cut in half they use the same plates, so the moisture and contaminants from the pressed leaf are still on the glass. I would guess as the moisture dries up and becomes less conductive the electrical field would become more limited to the remaining portion of the leaf.

BNiles

10th October 2003, 07:43 AM

That certainly passes the razor test.
Thanks

Psiload

10th October 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by BNiles
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.
Here's something the "Kirlian photographers" won't tell you...

They can get a dampened plastic sponge to produce the "biofield" aura.

...sniff test...

dmarker

10th October 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

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).

A cure is the cessation of the disease. Diabetes, high blood pressure, and schitzophrenia are not cured they are controlled.

athon

12th October 2003, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by Psiload

Here's something the "Kirlian photographers" won't tell you...

They can get a dampened plastic sponge to produce the "biofield" aura.

...sniff test...

I've always wondered, in today's modern age, why isn't Kirlian photography easily reproduced in today's photo labs? Given how long ago it all was (and the fact that so many still give it cred') why isn't there a course in Kirlian photography?

Athon

Dragon

13th October 2003, 01:28 AM

Steve,

Any luck with a decent pro-TT study?
I realise that it might be difficult, if not impossible, to find a "gold standard" study. (i.e. double-blind, placebo controlled and peer-reviwed) but if there is any study you feel is worthy of discussion then lets see it.

BillHoyt

13th October 2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by athon

I've always wondered, in today's modern age, why isn't Kirlian photography easily reproduced in today's photo labs? Given how long ago it all was (and the fact that so many still give it cred') why isn't there a course in Kirlian photography?

Athon

Suppression of the truth by the skeptico-balding-fatso-western-european-white-male-hetero-scientistic establishment.

Cheers,

Jeff Corey

13th October 2003, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Dragon
Steve,
Any luck with a decent pro-TT study?
I realise that it might be difficult, if not impossible, to find a "gold standard" study. (i.e. double-blind, placebo controlled and peer-reviwed) but if there is any study you feel is worthy of discussion then lets see it.
My guess is he won't. TT people don't do experiments, they do testimonials and anecdotes.
And they are mainly nurses and some social workers, who don't get a whole lot of training in designing experiments.

athon

14th October 2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Suppression of the truth by the skeptico-balding-fatso-western-european-white-male-hetero-scientistic establishment.

Cheers,

Oh. I think I'm a card-carrying member of that (at least I would be if I was fat).

Athon

Dragon

14th October 2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

...

TT people don't do experiments, they do testimonials and anecdotes.
And they are mainly nurses and some social workers, who don't get a whole lot of training in designing experiments.
I think you're right, and I'm not expecting him to find a really good study because I doubt there is one. I'll settle for the best he's got.

Dragon

15th October 2003, 02:38 AM

Steve,

On 5th October, this thread, you said - Give me a week and I will select out of the 454 citations both pro and con studies to back up the fact that TT, true TT therapeutic + touch, is still not a complete fraud.
If you've got something, let's see it.

Jeff Corey

15th October 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There are 50K nurses in a health care environment doing this in the US alone. I guess that really annoys Linda Rosa. And nobody has died from it.
He also posted this on the same day. I was horrified to hear that we have that many gullible, untrained nurses in this country.
I could imagine a plausible scenario where a person could die from malpractice if they avoided conventional medicine in favor of this quackery.

CFLarsen

15th October 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

He also posted this on the same day. I was horrified to hear that we have that many gullible, untrained nurses in this country.
I could imagine a plausible scenario where a person could die from malpractice if they avoided conventional medicine in favor of this quackery.

Calm down. This is, after all, Steve Grenard we are talking about here.

His data are usually quite suspect (if they exist at all).

But asking for him to back it up will only result in a suggestion to do your own search on Google.... :rolleyes:

15th October 2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Calm down. This is, after all, Steve Grenard we are talking about here.

His data are usually quite suspect (if they exist at all).

But asking for him to back it up will only result in a suggestion to do your own search on Google.... :rolleyes:

Or a google search:D

AlienX

16th October 2003, 12:27 PM

I have a quick question for the original poster:-

How many of your current "standard" medical treatments have no data to back up their effectiveness (in that I mean they do more benifit than harm).

I would assume it's a big fat zero - so why on earth would you even consider breaking this rule. Surely if you start breaking the rules for "alternative" treatments then what's to stop this expanding to the others.

AX

TruthSeeker

16th October 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by AlienX
I have a quick question for the original poster:-

How many of your current "standard" medical treatments have no data to back up their effectiveness (in that I mean they do more benifit than harm).

I would assume it's a big fat zero - so why on earth would you even consider breaking this rule. Surely if you start breaking the rules for "alternative" treatments then what's to stop this expanding to the others.

AX

Hi Alien

Actually, with the current emphasis on evidence-based medicine, it is becoming more and more rare to find treatments without documented effectiveness.

Just yesterday I was at a research development meeting where the discussion focussed on a proposal to investigate when a physician would be willing to try a treatment that they thought might not work but would not cause harm. Just from our clinical experience (And we will be conducting a survey to find out if this is true) the consensus seems to be the worse the prognosis, the more likely to try something different, just in case it helps. But that raises all sorts of ethical issues around patient burden and quality of life. Anyway, it was a fascinating discussion.

Not surprisingly, the person who claimed there was evidence for the effectivness of therapeutic touch never produced the citation.

Dragon

17th October 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
... snip...

Not surprisingly, the person who claimed there was evidence for the effectivness of therapeutic touch never produced the citation. Don't worry, I'm sure Steve Grenard will come up with something soon.

aries

26th February 2004, 08:39 AM

Hello :)

I must say i'm a bit confused...

As far ias i can understand TT is what is called 'healing' in Denmark (where i live) where a healer (of any sort) places his or her hands hovering over differents parts of the subject-patients body.

The theory is (as far as i understand) that all body's emanate what is called 'aura' --- and is in this 'aura' the healer (Or TT person that performs the TT) shufle's the subject- patients 'energisystem' around.

And the theory further should state that a result of this shuffling energy around the subject person is that the subect-person should be 'healed' of any ailment (or what) or bad or poor condition that the subject-person/patient have..

Hopefully, i have given an accurate account og what TT people say is happening...(but I think it is the same as 'healers' say the do in Denmark.)

Then let me comment on the 9 year old Emily Rosa's experiment.

First of all:

I'm also very confused...
(the design of the study was to see of the TT nurses could sense 'aura'.) First you have to define 'sense':what is this --- should they bee able to feel it, see it or whatever. Thenn you have to define aura.) This clearly a methodological question.

Another quesion to be raised:
Did all the nurses that she (Em. R) used claim to TT nurses...
and did they all claim that they could see/sense 'aura'.

Also:
I'm also very confused...

as i have read this thread i'm becoming more and more confused... :( --- true, but sad...

As I understand the initial question come from emily when she was driving in a car with her mom(mother). They apparantly heard a radio show/news cast where some TT nurses told that they could 'heal' (or make bittle a little bit better ???) people for various diseases (and so on).

Then she asked her mommy: well can they ? And her Mom answered: well, why don't you find out for yourself.

And then Emily made her 'research' which as far, as I can se, have nothing to do with her INITIAL question; that nurses that perform TT can heal people (if i remember correctly) --- which was, in all fairness, what Emily's report should have been about.

Not if TT nurses can or cannot see/sense/detect auras..

I apologize if this is not the case and the initial question was another...but as i said i'm really very confused (insert;
:rolling eyes smiley: here)

Not having read her(er) report i would say that this report seems to me to be flawed in its methodology...with no clear understanding on how to formulate a problem, make an hypothesis and so on,

as the report (by ER) seems apparantley to deal with a different type of question than the one she first put forth to her mother while driving in a car with her...(sorry for the english --- hope you still understand :) )

aries