Energy Healing Discussion, Part 2

[Antranik1]

Hello everybody. Some of you may remember me from the 1st Energy Healing Discussion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88442) thread. That was back in July 27, 2007. It is now about a month later and my way of thinking in this single month has changed drastically. My mind seems to have matured so greatly in regards to thinking from the point of view of the skeptical mind. I have been putting a large amount of time toward understanding what it takes to creating a scientific, repeatable, tightly-controlled experiment. I still practice the technique called "Quantum Touch" which claims to allow us to all become healers because I have very good experiences with it. I am very determined toward getting an experiment devised that can show the possible healing effects of Quantum Touch. I understand that the term "Quantum Touch" may be offending to most of you as the name tries to imply that this hands-on healing technique is somehow proven to have a connection with our current understanding of quantum mechanics. I will continue to use the name however because that is how I can identify it accurately. It also doesn't seem any more accurate to call it "Energy Healing" either as so many techniques are known as.

About 2 weeks ago I met up with the Independent Investigations Group (http://www.iigwest.com/) (IIG) nearby in Hollywood, CA. I had my mind set on demonstrating the effect on the alignment of hips. It would require eye-balling but since 15 people were there, if every single person stated what they saw and everyone agreed the volunteers hips were for example 1 inch higher on the left, then that would be something we can try. But they had their mind set on performing taste tests.

Jim, the director of IIG, was using the claims that I had made in my first ever post on the JREF forums. This is actually what made me realize as to how much my way of thinking and speaking had changed. I had said how QT changed the taste of beverages but after having done an actual taste test of my own with grape-soda, I was not impressed with the results (3/5 correct w/ a 20% chance of luck/error). So I told them I don't like the idea of taste testing but they wanted me to try it anyway since it seemed as though they discussed it beforehand that would be a good test. The conversation went something like...

Jim to me and the group: "Don't you say here in the email that QT makes soda taste really nasty and the viscosity changes?"

And I would say, "Well yes I did, but the words were not accurate now that I look back."

The conversation went in such a way that I said, okay sure we can test it if you guys really want me to although I think it's too subjective and if there's anything going on it's too subjective. Everybody seemed good with me trying it out anyway and started getting the soda. All the while I'm thinking... taste testing 10-cups is such hell on my mind that there's no way my mind can make a difference... and why is he telling me and everyone else that I wrote that to him in an email when it was my first post on JREF?

So I QT-ed a can of soda and before it was to be split in cups, I were to compare it to see if there was even a difference to begin with. I tried it and couldn't say I could and that was the end of the test.

Time was nearly up for me in that meeting and I was saying it would be easier to show this if I were to work on someones hips. I got a number of excuses why it couldn't work.

For example, there is no way for us to precisely measure it to begin with, someones hips may align simply by relaxing, and there's a liability risk.

So I left feeling quite discouraged and like this was all fruitless, which it sort of was.

I went home and told myself, it looks like if I'm going to prove anything, I'm going to need to go all out and setup an experiment with the proper physician, x-rays, blinded volunteer(s), collaborate with IIG members and do anything else needed to make this scientific.

I e-mailed Jim with this info and go a reply stating "In any case, let me suggest that any test we do should not involve x-rays, physicians, or determining slight differences between the before and after of what you do. Whatever test we conduct should be fairly obvious in showing your ability. Distinguishing syrup from soda, or nasty soda from regular soda is the kind of obvious test we'll want to conduct."

At that point I felt stumped. If they think it's a liability, a physician should be present. If they want precision and not just a demonstration that involves eye-balling, we need x-rays. How could I present something that's "obvious" if the standards it takes to arrange and experiment require instrumentation beyond our "obvious" human perception. And it couldn't have been due to the cost since in the meeting I was asked whether I would pay for the expenses and I said I wholeheartedly would because this is something that I am more curious about demonstration at this point than anybody else.

So, I was stumped and was trying to go back and figure out something more "obvious" that wouldn't involve people. In the QT book was an anecdotal story of the author applying QT to his expensive acoustic guitar and experiencing it sounding waterlogged for months. I thought, great! I could buy a guitar and see if this happens. I got a used guitar from craigslist for $40, and my friend and I performed QT on it. We even recorded every moment of it on video with a professional microphone. We didn't perceive a difference. I had some ideas as to why it maybe didn't work. So a week later we tried it again and it was again a waste of time.

In the other thread someone mentioned to fill canning jars with water and wait until algae or bacteria form and play with that. Well I've had 2 jars filled with tap water for about 3 weeks now and they still look perfectly clear, so that's useless.

All in all, I'm finding it difficult to demonstrate the effects of QT in any obvious way that doesn't actually have anything to do with healing people.

If IIG isn't going to be supporting me it looks as though I'm going to do a test with a person anyway without them because I want to do this! My friend who is helping me out and luckily is a die-hard skeptic will be helping me plan the experiment. I'm going to be calling some local physicians and asking for their opinions on the reality of scoliosis. If somebody knows the answers to all of the following questions, I would be very thankful for that information.

How likely is it for bones to move into alignment on their own? Do they really vary in position significantly in a day depending on if a person is relaxing or not? Are all x-ray technicians the same? Do they follow a process to assure that the spinal structure of a person is accurate everytime? Is it possible that an x-ray of the spine may show difference results simply due to the client not being in the SAME EXACT position as the last photo? How many degrees of change would it take to call the change in the cobb angle(s) of the spine to be anything of significance?

If you are not experienced enough to answer every single question, then please don't speculate. I want only the facts from experienced medical professionals. If somebody on these forums doesn't have it, i will ask local physicians and get their thoughts on the matter.

If the answers to the above questions are such that scoliosis can be accurately measured with the instruments we have, then the experiment I have in mind is the following.

I need a volunteer: Anybody who has been professionally diagnosed to have scoliosis.

This volunteer will be told that they will be a part of a study that all they are required to do is have a "scolie and AP-lateral" x-ray of their spine in the morning and a few hours later in the day, probably in the afternoon.

They will not be told that they will be getting healed, quantum-touched, or any of the sort. They will not be asked to relax either. They can do anything they want. The would only be asked to drink plenty of water for those few hours between x-rays.

I will never put my hands on this person. In fact, I will never see or meet this person face to face either. I will use the techniques I have learned in the advanced QT workshops to attempt to align the spinal column from long-distant. The distant doesn't matter, they could be 10 feet away or 10 miles away.

I will work on the person for about 2 hours and I will start after I am notified that the volunteer got their morning x-ray taken. Who will be helping me guide this volunteer in this entire process? I have no idea but hopefully someone from these forums or IIG.

After I work on the person for a couple of hours with my "mind," they go and get the x-rays again. We give these x-rays to a physician who has extensive experience with scoliosis. The physician must be blind and not be told what this is for. They must simply be asked to diagnose these x-rays independently. If there is any "significant difference" between the 2 x-rays then it should be attributed to the work that I had done. This all depends on the questions that need answer above this hypothetical experiment to understand whether x-rays are even accurate. If this is a viable test, I would be ready to carry it out as soon as possible.

I know I have written a lot and oddly all on paper originally at 5am in my bed but only because I want transparency in regards to my recent experiences and determination. I look forward to another meaningful discussion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have not reviewed the first thread, but I applaud your willingness to consider what it takes to prove the claims you've made.
I understand that the term "Quantum Touch" may be offending to most of you as the name tries to imply that this hands-on healing technique is somehow proven to have a connection with our current understanding of quantum mechanics. I will continue to use the name however because that is how I can identify it accurately.

I don't think "offended" is the right term. It's a misuse of the word "quantum" and your claim that it will identify what you do "accurately" isn't true.


Jim to me and the group: "Don't you say here in the email that QT makes soda taste really nasty and the viscosity changes?"

And I would say, "Well yes I did, but the words were not accurate now that I look back."

Does that mean you now admit that the claim is not true?

The conversation went in such a way that I said, okay sure we can test it if you guys really want me to although I think it's too subjective and if there's anything going on it's too subjective.
The blind taste-test protocol you described can easily test a "subjective" claim as the one you made. If you didn't expect that people can taste the difference between normal and "really nasty" then what exactly did the claim mean?


So I read through your stuff about trying to come up with a test on someone with scoliosis. I'd ask first, what is your claim?

If you claim the ability to cure scoliosis, you can conduct a very simple test on your own: find someone with a written diagnosis of scoliosis, cure the person, have them return to their doctor to verify that the scoliosis is gone.

If you don't claim to be able to cure scoliosis, please specify what it is you're claiming, and then try to figure out a way of testing that claim.

Yes, sometimes working with human subjects like this can make coming up with a protocol tricky. I would say my prime objection to your proposal involving x-rays and physicians is that since there's no other evidence to support your claim (and the claim of "quantum" is obviously bogus), it'd be a tremendous waste of time and money.

Do you claim the ability to do other things like you claimed with changing soda? Those claims would be MUCH easier to test than a vague claim that you make someone with scoliosis somewhat straighter.

If you have a specific claim that maybe the angle between one part of the spine and something else will change by so many degrees, that could maybe be tested sans MD and sans x-ray by using a goniometer. (I don't know--I really don't know how the severity of scoliosis is measured.) It wouldn't be too difficult to have the person doing the measure "blind" to which person he's measuring was treated and which wasn't.

By the way, have you "met" Christopher Pille?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65734

[Antranik1]

I have not reviewed the first thread, but I applaud your willingness to consider what it takes to prove the claims you've made.

Thanks

I don't think "offended" is the right term. It's a misuse of the word "quantum" and your claim that it will identify what you do "accurately" isn't true.

I don't mean it is accurate in terms of its actual function. I mean to say I will use it merely as a means of specifically identifying the healing technique.

Does that mean you now admit that the claim is not true?

I believe there is still something happening to the water because I have QT-ed water and asked others to taste-test it just 1 on 1 and people almost always have something to say about the difference. If I sip 10 different cups, it seriously becomes hell on my mind trying to figure it out. I don't think it makes it obviously nasty so i retract that claim. I would only care to repeat this test only with wine and a wine connoisseur as I'm guessing their tongue is a lot more refined than mine and they can pin point differences.

The blind taste-test protocol you described can easily test a "subjective" claim as the one you made. If you didn't expect that people can taste the difference between normal and "really nasty" then what exactly did the claim mean?

I don't misuse words and say "really nasty" anymore. I don't really even care to bring up any claims anymore on its taste-changing abilities. I would only repeat the test with some wine taster. This is what I mean by my mind having changed dramatically in this month. My first post on JREF seems like it's not even me because my opinions have changed a lot since then.

So I read through your stuff about trying to come up with a test on someone with scoliosis. I'd ask first, what is your claim?

If you claim the ability to cure scoliosis, you can conduct a very simple test on your own: find someone with a written diagnosis of scoliosis, cure the person, have them return to their doctor to verify that the scoliosis is gone.

If you don't claim to be able to cure scoliosis, please specify what it is you're claiming, and then try to figure out a way of testing that claim.

I claim to be able to allow a person's spine to be in better alignment. So the scoliosis may not be completely disappeared but the angle of the bend or bends should be less.

If I cure the person with scoliosis or least change the structure significantly with somebody that isn't blinded, then the skeptics will simply point out that through mere suggestion they could've healed themselves.

By the way, have you "met" Christopher Pille?

Yeah, I've read his stuff before a bit.

[Mashuna]

Hi Antranik. From what I recall of the first energy healing discussion, you were persuaded away from the scoliosis test because of the difficulty in obtaining a definitive result. It was pointed out by (I think) Linda that the posture of the patient can make a large difference to the angle of the bend, as could other factors. As a result, you decided to try a test with QT applied to soft drinks. This seemed a good test, with clear results. Now that the results from that test are in, why is it that you plan to go back to your original idea of a test that is much less likely to give you a clear result?

[Antranik1]

What you are effectively saying is that scoliosis cannot be accurately measured. Is this in fact true or skeptical speculation? The posture of the patient can make a e difference but that is why I ask the set of questions in the OP. I need specific answers to those. I originally stepped away from scoliosis because the requirement of x-rays was going to require a much greater amount of time and effort. I am at the point where if I'm going to prove anything, at least I'm going to go all out and do it properly.

[fls]

So I left feeling quite discouraged and like this was all fruitless, which it sort of was.

Yeah. I'm sorry that it didn't turn out to be useful. I understand that they wanted to choose a doable test, but there really is no point when we have all (including yourself) accepted the results of the test you did earlier.

I agree that if you proceed with any testing that it be meaningful to you - i.e. you would consider it a real test of what you can accomplish with QT. There are serious problems with the scoliosis test, but I am willing to help you to overcome those, if possible. It would be better if you could find an alternative test that gave you confidence. You mentioned the water or soda tasting by someone with a better palate. Surely in California you can find an experienced wine-taster. :) I think you should focus your efforts in this direction, but I am going to address your scoliosis ideas/questions.

How likely is it for bones to move into alignment on their own? Do they really vary in position significantly in a day depending on if a person is relaxing or not? Are all x-ray technicians the same? Do they follow a process to assure that the spinal structure of a person is accurate everytime? Is it possible that an x-ray of the spine may show difference results simply due to the client not being in the SAME EXACT position as the last photo? How many degrees of change would it take to call the change in the cobb angle(s) of the spine to be anything of significance?

It is hard to answer your first few questions because the position the bones are in depends mostly upon the ligaments holding then in place. There can be variation in the flexibility of these ligaments depending upon age, gender, temperature, and intrinsic factors. Tendons and muscles have a lesser influence - more to do with whether or not you have assumed the identical posture with each x-ray. Of course there will be variation in how much care x-ray technicians take in the positioning, but if they are aware they are doing this for a study, presumably they would take extra care. Ideally the same technician should do both x-rays.

As far as numbers go, here is an abstract (http://www.springerlink.com/content/vr2kh32571481021/) looking at variations in measurements in repeated x-rays and in x-rays looked at by different physicians. The 95% confidence limit for repeated x-rays would be +/-6.3 degrees. The 95% confidence limit for repeated measurements of the same x-ray would be +/-3.9 degrees. That is, your measurements could vary by +/-10 degrees due to measurement error (i.e. not due to any change in the underlying curvature of the spine). So you would want to see a change of much larger than 10 degrees in order to consider a treatment effect. Note that this experiment was performed in people with spinal fusion - i.e. there was no ligamentous variation to also take into account.

If you are not experienced enough to answer every single question, then please don't speculate. I want only the facts from experienced medical professionals. If somebody on these forums doesn't have it, i will ask local physicians and get their thoughts on the matter.

If the answers to the above questions are such that scoliosis can be accurately measured with the instruments we have, then the experiment I have in mind is the following.

I need a volunteer: Anybody who has been professionally diagnosed to have scoliosis.

This volunteer will be told that they will be a part of a study that all they are required to do is have a "scolie and AP-lateral" x-ray of their spine in the morning and a few hours later in the day, probably in the afternoon.

They will not be told that they will be getting healed, quantum-touched, or any of the sort. They will not be asked to relax either. They can do anything they want. The would only be asked to drink plenty of water for those few hours between x-rays.

I will never put my hands on this person. In fact, I will never see or meet this person face to face either. I will use the techniques I have learned in the advanced QT workshops to attempt to align the spinal column from long-distant. The distant doesn't matter, they could be 10 feet away or 10 miles away.

I will work on the person for about 2 hours and I will start after I am notified that the volunteer got their morning x-ray taken. Who will be helping me guide this volunteer in this entire process? I have no idea but hopefully someone from these forums or IIG.

After I work on the person for a couple of hours with my "mind," they go and get the x-rays again. We give these x-rays to a physician who has extensive experience with scoliosis. The physician must be blind and not be told what this is for. They must simply be asked to diagnose these x-rays independently. If there is any "significant difference" between the 2 x-rays then it should be attributed to the work that I had done. This all depends on the questions that need answer above this hypothetical experiment to understand whether x-rays are even accurate. If this is a viable test, I would be ready to carry it out as soon as possible.

I know I have written a lot and oddly all on paper originally at 5am in my bed but only because I want transparency in regards to my recent experiences and determination. I look forward to another meaningful discussion.

One of the concerns I have with this is the x-ray exposure. Usually care is taken to limit unnecessary x-rays in someone who already will have had significantly increased x-ray exposure because of monitoring. Another concern is that I'm not sure this is ethical - you will be withholding informed consent among other things. And a physician will need to be involved in order to order and read the x-rays. There's no guarantee you will be able to find someone willing to go along with this, given the potential violation of the code of ethics.

The other thing is.....how are you going to react if you are told that there is no significant change? Are you going to seriously consider that there really is no specific treatment effect to QT, or will you instead think that something must not have gone quite right. Be honest. Because the point of this exercise is really to convince you, not us, and there's no point in proceeding if you would doubt the results if negative.

ETA: It may be best to start by finding/getting a local doctor interested in your idea, rather than starting with a volunteer.

Linda

[Antranik1]

I agree that if you proceed with any testing that it be meaningful to you - i.e. you would consider it a real test of what you can accomplish with QT. There are serious problems with the scoliosis test, but I am willing to help you to overcome those, if possible. It would be better if you could find an alternative test that gave you confidence. You mentioned the water or soda tasting by someone with a better palate. Surely in California you can find an experienced wine-taster. :) I think you should focus your efforts in this direction, but I am going to address your scoliosis ideas/questions.

All right.. I have posted an ad on craigslist asking for the service of a very experienced, formal wine-taster.

It is hard to answer your first few questions because the position the bones are in depends mostly upon the ligaments holding then in place. There can be variation in the flexibility of these ligaments depending upon age, gender, temperature, and intrinsic factors. Tendons and muscles have a lesser influence - more to do with whether or not you have assumed the identical posture with each x-ray. Of course there will be variation in how much care x-ray technicians take in the positioning, but if they are aware they are doing this for a study, presumably they would take extra care. Ideally the same technician should do both x-rays.

As far as numbers go, here is an abstract (http://www.springerlink.com/content/vr2kh32571481021/) looking at variations in measurements in repeated x-rays and in x-rays looked at by different physicians. The 95% confidence limit for repeated x-rays would be +/-6.3 degrees. The 95% confidence limit for repeated measurements of the same x-ray would be +/-3.9 degrees. That is, your measurements could vary by +/-10 degrees due to measurement error (i.e. not due to any change in the underlying curvature of the spine). So you would want to see a change of much larger than 10 degrees in order to consider a treatment effect. Note that this experiment was performed in people with spinal fusion - i.e. there was no ligamentous variation to also take into account.

I'm pretty blown away by these numbers. Actually I'm more sad that this is the reality. :( I feel like everything has just gone down the toilet, again. If it's a 10-degree change for those with spinal fusion, what is the variation like for someone who hasn't undergone surgery? :Sigh: With all the skepticism and the room for error involved with both the x-rays and diagnosis by physicians, I suppose it could be infinite.

One of the concerns I have with this is the x-ray exposure. Usually care is taken to limit unnecessary x-rays in someone who already will have had significantly increased x-ray exposure because of monitoring. Another concern is that I'm not sure this is ethical - you will be withholding informed consent among other things. And a physician will need to be involved in order to order and read the x-rays. There's no guarantee you will be able to find someone willing to go along with this, given the potential violation of the code of ethics.

I understand.

The other thing is.....how are you going to react if you are told that there is no significant change? Are you going to seriously consider that there really is no specific treatment effect to QT, or will you instead think that something must not have gone quite right. Be honest. Because the point of this exercise is really to convince you, not us, and there's no point in proceeding if you would doubt the results if negative.

If we mutually agree on an experiment that involves healing people in some way and we have basically accounted for every single thing that could contribute to errors and I fail it, then that will speak for itself. If the experiment is such that I don't have any reservations about it, then I'm going to believe it as well, no matter what the results are.



ETA: It may be best to start by finding/getting a local doctor interested in your idea, rather than starting with a volunteer.

Linda

What's ETA stand for? And with all that you've said, why should I even bother with this if there is so much room for error. I've been focusing on scoliosis because this is something visual at least as opposed to something more sketchy or subjective such as working with a person in pain and monitoring their pain levels.

Linda I thank you for your knowledge, you are very smart and I am glad you are here to help me. With all this said, I'm pretty depressed at the moment with the reality that there is really no way for us to accurately measure scoliosis. :more sighs:

[kellyb]

Is there any condition that could be evaluated with ultrasound that the QT thing would apply to?
Ultrasound eliminates the ethical issues with x-ray, doesn't it?

[strathmeyer]

What's quantumized about Quantum Touch? Or are you just using words that you think nobody will know what they mean?

[kellyb]

What's quantumized about Quantum Touch? Or are you just using words that you think nobody will know what they mean?

He admits that it's not a good name, but it's just what it's popularly known as.

[Normal Dude]

Antranik,

Although I don't personally agree with your belief of quantum touch, I'd like to thank you for being mature about the matter. Too many people, when their ideas are challenged, will get defensive and believe that criticism of the idea is criticism of the idea's owner. I just hope your ultimate goal is to determine whether or not QT works, not to prove that it works. The difference is subtle, but very important. :)

[Apathia]

Antranik1,

Thank you for sharing this investigation with us. I like it very much that you are applying some critical thinking to your QT experience. Please keep us up to speed on your findings.

Rei

[Goshawk]

Two points:

1. Scoliosis is a disease of children. (http://www.mayoclinic.org/scoliosis/) I am very uncomfortable with the idea of you using children afflicted with scoliosis as guinea pigs in your experiments. It might give their parents false hope that you can "cure" their children's illness, and until you have definitely demonstrated that you can in fact do so, I think you should not even allow the possibility of giving parents false hope in that respect.

2. Scoliosis is diagnosed by an experienced pediatrician eyeballing a child during a routine exam and realizing that the child's spine is not in correct alignment. Then x-rays are taken to confirm the diagnosis. There is no way to do this with ultrasound.

I am doubly uncomfortable with the idea of you requiring children to have unnecessary x-rays solely so you can attempt to demonstrate your "power."

Question: why have you chosen scoliosis as the disease you think you can cure with your laying-on-of-hands?

[Antranik1]

Is there any condition that could be evaluated with ultrasound that the QT thing would apply to?
Ultrasound eliminates the ethical issues with x-ray, doesn't it?

QT could be used for healing just about anything. So if there is something that can be observed accurately with the use of ultrasound, please let me know.

[Ivor the Engineer]

ETA = Edited To Add

ETA: ETA = Expected Time of Arrival

[Antranik1]

Two points:

1. Scoliosis is a disease of children. (http://www.mayoclinic.org/scoliosis/) I am very uncomfortable with the idea of you using children afflicted with scoliosis as guinea pigs in your experiments. It might give their parents false hope that you can "cure" their children's illness, and until you have definitely demonstrated that you can in fact do so, I think you should not even allow the possibility of giving parents false hope in that respect.

2. Scoliosis is diagnosed by an experienced pediatrician eyeballing a child during a routine exam and realizing that the child's spine is not in correct alignment. Then x-rays are taken to confirm the diagnosis. There is no way to do this with ultrasound.

Question: why have you chosen scoliosis as the disease you think you can cure with your laying-on-of-hands?

In response to your last question I already said above, "I've been focusing on scoliosis because this is something visual at least as opposed to something more sketchy or subjective such as working with a person in pain and monitoring their pain levels."

In response to your first point, scoliosis is NOT solely a disease of children. If it is congenital, it exists in children and presumably for the rest of their lives unless corrected through braces or surgery. If it is idiopathic, it could have developed at anytime.

I am doubly uncomfortable with the idea of you requiring children to have unnecessary x-rays solely so you can attempt to demonstrate your "power."

I never required children to be a part of any experiment. And if you want me to demonstrate my power, how about you be of some help by suggesting an experiment for me.

Frankly these forums are like a double-edged sword. There are knowledgeable people, then there are people who just love to attack because most probably they feel protected because everyone is a skeptic here anyway and shredding words apart of people like me is so easy to do with everybody here all on one side and the crazy lunatic energy healer alone on the other side.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of you using children afflicted with scoliosis as guinea pigs in your experiments.

I never mentioned children will be used.

It might give their parents false hope that you can "cure" their children's illness, and until you have definitely demonstrated that you can in fact do so, I think you should not even allow the possibility of giving parents false hope in that respect.

Who said I am giving parents false hope that I can cure their children's illness? There are not even going to be any children involved in this experiment that will not even occur anymore because of Linda's insight on the fact that scoliosis cannot be precisely measured.

You want me to definitely demonstrate that I can in fact have any such power? How would you like me to do that? Until then I should not even allow the possibility of giving parents false hope in that respect?

Are you delusional man? You're going off on this whole notion that I'm giving parents the idea that I'm going to cure their children? Your post is completely full of nonsense. How am I supposed to definitely demonstrate that I have this power if you're going to cry about all the suffering the volunteers might have to go through? Especially the poor children, oh me oh my. If you don't have anything meaningful to add goshawk, please don't even bother, seriously.

[kellyb]

Yeah...my very adult husband has pretty bad scoliosis (diagnosed in infancy).
He'd be a bad test subject, I think, because visually, the severity varies really wildly week to week. His muscles in his back are always getting whacked out (that's the technical term, by the way), and that seems to make his spine's curvature fluctuate a lot.

[Antranik1]

Hey Linda, you said "There are serious problems with the scoliosis test, but I am willing to help you to overcome those, if possible."

How can we overcome the problems? Do I simply need to find somebody with extreme cobb angles like of 50, 60 degrees?

Although it looks like the execution of the scoliosis test is looking pretty grim, I found another experiment that was mentioned in the QT book.

I'm going to just type out this part of the section straight from the book rather than waste time putting it in my own words.

I visited Dr. C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D. at his clinic in Springfield, Missouri. Dr. Shealy decided to see how Quantum-Touch might affect brain wave patterns at a distance. This was something that I had never tried, and to be honest, I was not at all confident about the outcome.

Dr. Shealy asked an elderly gentleman to lie down for an hour to have his brainwaves mapped out. The man had not been told that I would be trying to do a distant healing session on him. When I use the word "distant," I mean there is no physical contact being made between the practitioner and client. In this case, I was only about twelve feet away. For thirty minutes, we monitored the man's brainwaves and used that information as a baseline. At this point, one of Norm's assistants tapped me on the shoulder as a signal to start doing distant healing. For the next thirty minutes I ran the energy and when I was finished, we continued monitoring his brainwaves for another five minutes to see if stopping had an effect.

The results surprised me a great deal. In the first five minutes after I started running energy, the man's delta brain wave activity increased profoundly. In the left and right frontal parts, delta waves jumped from 11.7 and 12.6 respectively, to 23.2 and 23.3. The midbrain readout jumped from 18.8 to 58.7, and occipital readouts went up from 18.8 and 15.0 to 25.0 and 26.3. By the end of the session, his frontal delta readouts had dropped to an amazing 3.6 and 4.4, his midbrain was down to 5.1 and occipital readings became 8.2 and 10.4, respectively. Dr. Shealy told me that in 30 years of looking at brain waves, he had never seen such a quiet pattern. He added that if he had not known better and had only seen the last readout of brain activity, he might have thought the man was brain-dead. I find this comment especially interesting, coming from a former neurosurgeon.

There is an actual illustration of all the data and the patterns at the baseline (30 minutes of rest), 5 minutes after distant-healing had begun and after 30 minutes of distant healing. It shows the readouts for frontal 1, frontal 2, central brain, occipital 1, occipital 2 and the Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta waves of each at the aforementioned times.

I don't know what these numbers mean as there is no unit associated with them. It's just some frequency?
ETA: I'm looking at the actual brain-wave pattern pictures and there is a Hz symbol on the X-axis. Maybe I can scan this if anyone cares to see it. And he writes out all the changes of the delta-waves but the Theta, Alpha and Beta fluctuate in the same patterns as well (shoot up 5 minutes into the healing session and then quiet down more than baseline by the end of the hour).

I don't know anything about reading "brainwaves" so I wouldn't know how difficult it would be to set this up but it's something I would be willing to try. This experiment wouldn't show that I'm healing anything in particular, but if the brainwaves jump around unusually like this once I start the distant-healing, then it will at least prove that I am having some sort of effect at least. Comments?

[Apathia]

Antranik1,

I remember that from when I last read the QT Book in November. I was surprised Dr. Shealy was so amazed (Maybe I shouldn't have been.)
Delta waves on an EEG are characteristic of deep relaxation and sleep (other than the rem phase).

What seems to have happened there is very simple to explain. The man was lying down, resting, and fell asleep. The EEG acurately recorded his brain state. It had nothing to do with someone doing QT twelve feet away, except that the immediate environment was quiet so as not to interfere with the practitioner.

Its an ordinary experience that calm, as agitation, is catching, but this looks to be simply tired man lays down on massage table and falls asleep.

Incidental spikes in brainwave activity wouldn't necessarily be indicative of QT.

Shealy's comment about how deeply relaxed the individual was?
How many times has he given a patient an hour on the EEG? This guy had time to sleep deeply.

It is my personal, anecdotal experience with different modes of "Energy Work" including QT that they induce relaxation. I usually ask for some kind of "Energy Work" from a practitioner before she does Deep Tissue Massage on me. It's substantailly more effective that way for me.
But I supect this is largely because it gives me more time to relax into the session and acclimatizes me to the therapist's touch so that I'm more receptive.

Rei

[Goshawk]

In response to your first point, scoliosis is NOT solely a disease of children.


These are all Google results for a simple search on "scoliosis". I may perhaps be forgiven for stating that "scoliosis is a disease of children" when the Mayo Clinic, NIH, Medline, eMedicine, and scoliosis.org all say that it is most common in children. It occurs in adults the same way that measles or chicken pox also occur in adults; measles and chicken pox are also considered diseases of children, but adults can also get them.

And so it is with scoliosis. It is primarily a disease of children, although adults can also be diagnosed with it, but pay attention to the part where it says that onset of scoliosis in adults is rare, that generally it's just that it gets diagnosed when they're adults, but that it began when they were children.

****

"Idiopathic scoliosis (http://www.iscoliosis.com/causes.html) is broken down into four categories based on age: (1) infantile: children ages 3 and under, (2) juvenile: 3-9 years old, (3) adolescent: 10-18 years old, and (4) adult: after skeletal maturity. The most common form of scoliosis, representing approximately 80% of idiopathic scoliosis cases, is Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS), which develops in young adults around the onset of puberty."

Three out of their four categories are "children". The vast majority of scoliosis cases--80%--occur in adolescents ("children").

****

"# The vast majority of scoliosis (http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/brochure/thr_report.cfm?Thread_ID=14) is "idiopathic," meaning its cause is unknown. It usually develops in middle or late childhood, before puberty, and is seen more often in girls than boys. Though scoliosis can occur in children with cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, spinal bifida and other miscellaneous conditions, most scoliosis is found in otherwise healthy youngsters.

# Adults - Scoliosis usually develops during childhood, but it also can occur in adults. Adult scoliosis may represent the progression of a condition that actually began in childhood, and was not diagnosed or treated while the person was still growing. "

****

"The primary age of onset (http://www.scoliosis.org/info.php) for scoliosis is 10-15 years old..."

****

"Scoliosis usually occurs (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/scoliosis/page4_em.htm) around age 10 years."

****

"Idiopathic scoliosis (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001241.htm) in adolescents is the most common type. "

****

"Scoliosis is most common (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/scoliosis.html) in late childhood and the early teens, when children grow fast."

****

"Onset of scoliosis rarely occurs in adults. (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/scoliosis/DS00194) Sometimes, adult scoliosis is a worsening of a condition that began in childhood, but wasn't diagnosed or treated."

****

"Scoliosis is often first noticed (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/scoliosis/DS00194/DSECTION=4) just before and during adolescence, during a growth spurt."

****

"People of all ages (http://www.niams.nih.gov/hi/topics/scoliosis/ffscoliosis.htm) can have scoliosis. The most common type is idiopathic scoliosis in children aged 10-12 and in their early teens."

****



I find it...interesting...that you seem to interpret my skepticism concerning your claims as a personal attack, leading you to rant about "these forums". Are you fine with skepticism as long as the skeptics seem supportive?


And if you want me to demonstrate my power, how about you be of some help by suggesting an experiment for me.


I'd be absolutely delighted to. A Google search on "quantum touch" elicits the information that it involves using mystical energy to heal the body.

And we want to use something besides x-rays to confirm. Okay.

Find someone with either Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (http://www.medicinenet.com/fatty_liver/page10.htm) or Cirrhosis (http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic175.htm). These are both diagnosed with a combination of blood tests and ultrasound.

[Antranik1]

I find it...interesting...that you seem to interpret my skepticism concerning your claims as a personal attack, leading you to rant about "these forums".

Why did you find that strange? You weren't talking to a group of people proposing the experiment, I'm the only one proposing it. The fact of the matter is you made this seem as though I'm going to be putting children in danger all just to prove something.

I am doubly uncomfortable with the idea of you requiring children to have unnecessary x-rays solely so you can attempt to demonstrate your "power."

Just in case anybody else is wondering why I'm going to be hurting the children, I'm not, I never even thought of using kids. All this info about the onset of scoliosis being at a young age doesn't concern me because the development of it cannot be prevented. Thus, there are plenty of adults who have this condition and I expected to use one of them, as opposed to finding a child, get approval from the parents (and give them false hope in the process, lol). Things are complicated as they are and we haven't even come up with a great idea, so I'm trying to keep things simple here, believe me that's what I want. I'm basically trying to test a condition that can be very easily diagnosed (noninvasive and safe) and is such that it is very unlikely for it to easily reverse.

I've looked into the fatty liver disease and cirrhosis, thanks for the suggestions by the way. Unfortunately they both seem to basically come down to the fact that the best method to check for it would involve a liver biopsy, which has its risks as well. There are other methods but non are superior to the biopsy.

[Antranik1]

What seems to have happened there is very simple to explain. The man was lying down, resting, and fell asleep. The EEG acurately recorded his brain state. It had nothing to do with someone doing QT twelve feet away, except that the immediate environment was quiet so as not to interfere with the practitioner.

Its an ordinary experience that calm, as agitation, is catching, but this looks to be simply tired man lays down on massage table and falls asleep.

Incidental spikes in brainwave activity wouldn't necessarily be indicative of QT.

Shealy's comment about how deeply relaxed the individual was?
How many times has he given a patient an hour on the EEG? This guy had time to sleep deeply.

Good points Rei. So if we were to repeat this experiment and see what happens, how could we make this bulletproof?

How long is the typical amount of time a person would stay on the EEG?

Is this test in the book a normal amount of time for creating a baseline? Can a baseline be established in less time, such as 10 minutes, so the person doesn't have much chance to sleep? And if 30 minutes is a good amount, well how could we simply have this person not get too relaxed and fall asleep? But I'm guessing the readings would be best if the person stays still the whole time though, correct?

[fls]

I'm pretty blown away by these numbers. Actually I'm more sad that this is the reality. :( I feel like everything has just gone down the toilet, again. If it's a 10-degree change for those with spinal fusion, what is the variation like for someone who hasn't undergone surgery? :Sigh: With all the skepticism and the room for error involved with both the x-rays and diagnosis by physicians, I suppose it could be infinite.

On the other hand, you did say (just going on memory here) that the results you had achieved before were fairly dramatic - i.e. it was visually obvious and of a degree that gave you confidence. This suggests that you were talking about changes that were greater than 10 degrees.

I made a suggestion on the first thread that I still think may be a useful way to proceed. Start by confirming that what is visually obvious to you is visually obvious to others. Find a volunteer and ask them to speak to their doctor about the experiment. All the doctor has to do is see them twice in the same day - before and after the treatment - and determine whether they can find a difference on physical examination (you may have to pay for the visits). It doesn't have to be blind. Ideally, it would be someone local so that you can also confirm that you see a visual difference, but that part isn't absolutely necessary. If it's positive, it strengthens your ability to proceed with a more rigorous test. It (hopefully) will interest the physician enough to agree to participate in your more formal test, and it gives you a better indication of the degree of change that can be expected.

Another suggestion I have is for you to google images of scoliosis and see if you can identify two pictures (they don't have to be of the same person) that are roughly equivalent to what you remember of the before treatment and after treatment appearance of one of your cases. I can look at them and see if I can figure out (roughly) what degree of change there is between the two pictures. That also might give us an idea of whether this is useful to pursue. For example, if the changes you thought you saw were greater than 20 degrees, then the x-ray change may be large enough for skeptics to take seriously.

If we mutually agree on an experiment that involves healing people in some way and we have basically accounted for every single thing that could contribute to errors and I fail it, then that will speak for itself. If the experiment is such that I don't have any reservations about it, then I'm going to believe it as well, no matter what the results are.

Then what is your explanation for why you couldn't hear any difference with the guitar you applied QT to?

What's ETA stand for?

Sorry. "Edited to add".

Linda

[fls]

Hey Linda, you said "There are serious problems with the scoliosis test, but I am willing to help you to overcome those, if possible."

How can we overcome the problems? Do I simply need to find somebody with extreme cobb angles like of 50, 60 degrees?

We need to find some kind of test that you feel is a real test of what you can do with QT and that leads to a result that is of interest to skeptics. I think that is why the hip asymmetry test was rejected by IIG. So I think you need to choose a test that you are confident will be positive. You weren't positive that the guitar test would work because you hadn't done it before. When the results were negative you saw it as a fault of your abilities (either your QT abilities or your ability to discern differences in the sound) rather than a fault of QT (if I am reading you correctly). We shouldn't proceed if your response is going to be "I choose the wrong test" rather than "hmmm, I'm starting to feel some doubt about QT" if the result is negative.

And you want skeptics to take you seriously for your positive results - change some minds or give you the opportunity to apply for The Challenge. This means that you have to show that you can make a difference in something when no difference would be expected. And that this difference can be detected under double-blind conditions, so we have some confidence that whoever is involved is not just fooling themselves. Does that sounds about right?

I encourage you to try to identify changes that you are confident you can discern (or that anybody could discern) without experimenting on humans. Maybe there are more suggestions in the book, or maybe you can think of more examples from your personal experience? Maybe we should wait and see how your work with a wine-taster goes? You may discover that QT works on wine (the taster can discern a difference when not blinded). I realize that you may have been thinking of using her/him to identify differences in water or soda, but I suggest you start with wine. You should expect QT to work on wine, and it makes the best use of your (the wine-taster and you) skills. In that case, a double-blind test could be set up with IIG and that would get the notice of skeptics if it was positive.

If not, I will continue to help you come up with a suitable medical experiment. The criteria are: you should be confident that QT (as performed by you) will show an effect in this condition, the effect would be almost impossible under normal conditions, it should be fairly easy to measure/determine, it must be ethical. In order for one person to serve as a test for QT, something dramatic must happen (sorta equivalent to regrowing a limb). Curing someone of a disease that is always progressive, affecting changes in an impossibly short period of time, changing something that is treated surgically, etc. Examples would be eliminating large gallstones or kidney stones, curing and incurable cancer, reversing chronic lung disease....

Any of these would fulfill the last three criteria. The problem will be with you and the first criteria. If you've never done this before, how confident would you be that you could measurably reverse chronic lung disease. If nothing happened, would you really start to doubt?

Although it looks like the execution of the scoliosis test is looking pretty grim, I found another experiment that was mentioned in the QT book.

I don't think that is going to be useful. As a skeptic, I'm asking "how do we know that wouldn't have happened anyway?" Answer. "We don't."

Linda

[fls]

Goshawk,

Your complaint was out of line.

While you may be able to justify your statement that "scoliosis is a disease of children", the way in which it may be considered that was not applicable to your rant. That lack of knowledge led you to speak was what Antranik1 specifically asked people not to do in her/his OP.

Also, it could be taken into consideration that I can be depended upon to identify any ethical concerns. Unless you have a complaint against me, as well.

Linda
(ETA: I know rant is an exaggeration)

[fls]

I've looked into the fatty liver disease and cirrhosis, thanks for the suggestions by the way. Unfortunately they both seem to basically come down to the fact that the best method to check for it would involve a liver biopsy, which has its risks as well. There are other methods but non are superior to the biopsy.

Yes, this would have to be confirmed by biopsy. It would only be acceptable if someone was going to have biopsy anyway (you would treat them before their scheduled biopsy).

How much would you need to know about the person in order to perform QT on them? Are you confident it would work?

Linda

[Antranik1]

Hi Linda, thanks for your posts. In regards to my confidence on working on a condition I've never worked on before, I would naturally not feel as confident as doing it on something I've done before. However that wouldn't stop me from accepting the test if I do my online research toward completely understanding the etiology (so I would know what organs, glands, areas of the body are not functioning). Also, when working on a condition I've never done before, I might want to request more time than 2 hours which shouldn't be a problem I suppose. So I should know as much as possible about the persons condition and if we don't confidently know much at all (and that is the reason for the biopsy), then I would not feel confident simply because I wouldn't be sure if I'm working on the areas that need help. I can't diagnose a person; they would have to know what is wrong with them to begin with as I am (clearly) not a doctor.

[Antranik1]

On the other hand, you did say (just going on memory here) that the results you had achieved before were fairly dramatic - i.e. it was visually obvious and of a degree that gave you confidence. This suggests that you were talking about changes that were greater than 10 degrees.

I made a suggestion on the first thread that I still think may be a useful way to proceed. Start by confirming that what is visually obvious to you is visually obvious to others. Find a volunteer and ask them to speak to their doctor about the experiment. All the doctor has to do is see them twice in the same day - before and after the treatment - and determine whether they can find a difference on physical examination (you may have to pay for the visits). It doesn't have to be blind. Ideally, it would be someone local so that you can also confirm that you see a visual difference, but that part isn't absolutely necessary. If it's positive, it strengthens your ability to proceed with a more rigorous test. It (hopefully) will interest the physician enough to agree to participate in your more formal test, and it gives you a better indication of the degree of change that can be expected.

That sounds like something I could do parallel to any other ideas we may come up with in the meantime.

Another suggestion I have is for you to google images of scoliosis and see if you can identify two pictures (they don't have to be of the same person) that are roughly equivalent to what you remember of the before treatment and after treatment appearance of one of your cases. I can look at them and see if I can figure out (roughly) what degree of change there is between the two pictures. That also might give us an idea of whether this is useful to pursue. For example, if the changes you thought you saw were greater than 20 degrees, then the x-ray change may be large enough for skeptics to take seriously.

You can look at pictures I have taken myself. I took great care to make sure her feet and legs and posture were even in every way with both shots. This picture is of my mother, she has scoliosis (as does her mother and I do too) and I originally took these pictures to see for myself if I can make any changes using the advanced techniques I had just learned (this was many months ago). I took the first picture and then told her I'll be working on her from a distant, she can do anything she wants. So i worked on every vertebrae in my mind for an hour and a half in the kitchen while she was on her laptop, then watching tv, then cooking in the kitchen. I never posted this picture before and don't really think anyone will be impressed anyway because everything can be labeled photoshop and that's the end of every story.
http://www.healththrutouch.com/images/momcomparison.jpg
If you place a vertical line (like in photoshop!) running through the center of the lumbar spine, you'll find that on the left image, the neck falls way too much to the right. In the right image if you place the line centered on the same place, the neck is fine. The shoulders look more even and I know they are in real life because my mother TOLD ME the next day(i didn't ask her) that she had to re-adjust her bra straps later on that day because one of the sides wouldn't stay snug anymore.

ETA: I just realized that posting this image is probably going to set off all these attacks that the pictures are completely useless because it's not in a controlled setting and what do I know about taking pictures of a persons back anyway, right? So I'm not submitting this as any solid evidence, but just as something may Linda could look at and comment on further.

[Apathia]

Good points Rei. So if we were to repeat this experiment and see what happens, how could we make this bulletproof?

How long is the typical amount of time a person would stay on the EEG?

Is this test in the book a normal amount of time for creating a baseline? Can a baseline be established in less time, such as 10 minutes, so the person doesn't have much chance to sleep? And if 30 minutes is a good amount, well how could we simply have this person not get too relaxed and fall asleep? But I'm guessing the readings would be best if the person stays still the whole time though, correct?

It's not an easy experiment. In fact nothing about QT lends itself to easy experimentation except detection of energy or consistant cures.
Pain relief, reduction of stress, and feelings of being 'energised" are all on very subjective grounds here. Some have sought to demonstrate they can feel the energy from brhind a screen or blind. Results have not been encouraging. I'm not familiar with any research that gives results showing QT, TT. or Reiki able to address any chronic illness with consistancy.

With an EEG, you could easily show changes in brainwave activity very soon after the practitioner begins (This on subjects knowing the person is there, standing over them, but not necessarily knowing what the touch or hand waving is about.) thisharkens back to the time when touching, huddling, and grooming had great social importance fior our prelingual ancestors.

As for getting some substantial consistant resuslts with a unseen standing twelve feet away. You'd start by doing this many, many times with and without the unseen, unmentioned practitioner doing QT, just to see for a start if there is any consistant difference that can be attributed to the practitoner's activity.

The fatal problem of the incident Gorden cited in his book, is that nothing happened in that single circumstance that couldn't be attributed to the subject simply relaxing into delta waves on his own. Many repetitions of the set up might show some repeatable difference, Then you'd have to exclude any other reason why the subjects were more relaxed,

It's work; roll up your sleeves tedious work, to get solid empirical data.
I find that most of the practitoners of "Energy Work" I know, aren't really of that mind set to bring critical investigation to this subject.
one of the first books I read on the subject (Joy's Way) actually tells the reader to suspend critical thinking.

So I like your attitude to do an objective investigation.

Again on the EEG thing, you'd want to find out if there was an actual correlation to what the hidden practitioner was doing and the EEG of the subject. And this is a simple at the beginning. Just repeat the circumstance many times with different subjects and sometimes with or without the QT practitoner's presence. If there is any consistant effect, then you go on to tighten it up into a proper experiment. If not, you can dismiss the alleged effect and move on.

An hour on the massage table is going go delta for most people regardless of anyone else being present there. You're gong to be looking for results in a much shorter period of time. Ten minutes is enough from my own experience to effect an altered state of consciouness. But what's very important here is the EEG. Will it show differnt waye patterns than just a typical relaxation because the subject is reclined.

[fls]

You can look at pictures I have taken myself. I took great care to make sure her feet and legs and posture were even in every way with both shots. This picture is of my mother, she has scoliosis (as does her mother and I do too) and I originally took these pictures to see for myself if I can make any changes using the advanced techniques I had just learned (this was many months ago). I took the first picture and then told her I'll be working on her from a distant, she can do anything she wants. So i worked on every vertebrae in my mind for an hour and a half in the kitchen while she was on her laptop, then watching tv, then cooking in the kitchen. I never posted this picture before and don't really think anyone will be impressed anyway because everything can be labeled photoshop and that's the end of every story.

If you place a vertical line (like in photoshop!) running through the center of the lumbar spine, you'll find that on the left image, the neck falls way too much to the right. In the right image if you place the line centered on the same place, the neck is fine. The shoulders look more even and I know they are in real life because my mother TOLD ME the next day(i didn't ask her) that she had to re-adjust her bra straps later on that day because one of the sides wouldn't stay snug anymore.

ETA: I just realized that posting this image is probably going to set off all these attacks that the pictures are completely useless because it's not in a controlled setting and what do I know about taking pictures of a persons back anyway, right? So I'm not submitting this as any solid evidence, but just as something may Linda could look at and comment on further.

That was very useful. Thank you (and your mother :)).

I think it will be pointless to attempt, on your own, a test of QT that will be convincing. Unless you've been holding back, none of what you've described or shown is unexpected. I know this will be disappointing with respect to your initial goal - demonstrating the therapeutic benefits of QT.

If you still want to proceed with answering the challenge of skeptics, then you should focus on finding a non-medical test - like the taste-testing that has already been suggested.

I know this wasn't one of your stated goals, but I also think you should address the honesty of what you have chosen to do, and take a critical look at QT. I think you should make more of an effort to understand what it's like to fool yourself.

One thing that medicine teaches you is what it looks like when you are fooling yourself. The reason that we all know what it looks like is because we take a critical look at what we do. And because we take a critical look at what we do, we all have had the experience of discovering that something we did, something that we were convinced was helpful, was really just bullocks. We were really just fooling ourselves. Conventional medicine doesn't reject these things because they have funny names, or the proposed mechanisms don't make sense. They get rejected because we look at the claims and recognize that those are exactly the same kinds of things we said before we discovered we were fooling ourselves. Our first hand experience making this mistake makes it easier for us to recognize it in others.

Why do I care? Because you seem sincere and I don't think you want to focus your life around something that may turn out to be a lie. Because promotion of these ideas also depends upon the promotion of pseudo-science, non-science, and paranoia, none of which is beneficial to the progress of humans. Because it wastes resources (time, money, effort) that could be better spent on those things that provide a real advantage or advance knowledge.

If you are interested, I have some suggestions for how you can test yourself. For example, have a trusted friend carefully take pictures of your mom every day for two weeks. On one of those days (randomly chosen) you treat your mom (without telling her). The pictures are mixed up and handed to you, and you have to sort out which ones were pre-treatment and which were post-treatment.

Linda

[Antranik1]

Hi Good morning Linda,

I have been taking a critical look at QT and the reason why I have dedicated so much of my life toward it is because in the 3 years that I have been using it, almost everybody seems to feel the technique working on them. It's uncommon for people to not feel relief from whatever pain that ails them and very rare for them to not feel anything happening even temporarily. I mean, what do you say to the situation that my mother told me voluntarily the following day that she had to adjust her bra-straps? I mean didn't something happen there?


How about following case that happened just 3 weeks ago with a friend. She complained that her back was hurting as she sat on the couch to watch tv together. Her father was there and said, oh let me massage you and was trying to do his best. He's not a pro, just wanted to try to help massage the pain away. He did that for 10-15 minutes and left the room. We're watching tv and the commercials come and I ask her if she's better? She says no so I ask her if she wants me to work on her while we watch tv, since we can both just do this while still being able to watch the tv, so we might as well. She agrees and I start the QT. She estimated her pain to be a 4-5 (out of 10) and in about 5-6 minutes (a bit after the commercials ended) she said thank you, the pain is gone. I asked her what # would you give it? She repeated, no it's gone, it's a zero. I was like wow ok.. so we get back in our positions and continue watching tv. I asked her how long has she had this back pain? She said it's been 4 days nonstop. We just realized what had happened and gave each other a high-five. Plus it never came back later.

So anyway, that's another anecdotal story. Didn't something happen there either? Things like this reinforce my mind that QT might have some therapeutic value because the rate at which someone feels the effects of it is not 20%, 30% it's more like 90%.

Why is it so difficult to test a medical condition? I'm looking for a wine-taster by the way and that will be done parallel to this but in the mean time I don't understand why this could be so difficult. If we practiced this level of skepticism for all drugs or treatments, we could surely find tons of holes in their tests as well, couldn't we? Maybe we can do a test with an animal or something. I'm stumped at the moment cause it feels like.. it just feels like.. we don't have the instruments and tools to properly test this.

[Capsid]

Can QT treat blindness or deafness? That would be easy to show if it worked.

[Antranik1]

That's a very good suggestion Capsid!

Does anybody here know anybody who is blind or deaf?

It doesn't matter if they live nearby or not, I can work on them from a distance once I know a little bit of info (like their name, age, what's wrong, etc).

[kellyb]

Do they have to know that you're doing it?
Could you QT heal someone without their knowledge (or consent, I guess)?

[Antranik1]

They don't have to know that I'm doing it. I can heal somebody without their knowledge or consent.

I don't know if you are asking because of logistics or ethics. Someone surely going to interject and say this could be very unethical. So I'm going to assume it is said already and ask, is it unethical to heal somebody of their blindness or deafness without their consent? If they wanted to be handicapped, they could surely find a way to damage themselves again.

I don't know the kinds of blindness/deafness there could be. I'm going to be guessing that if somebody has two glass eyes, it's not going to work. I'll have to wiki the kinds of blindness/deafness there could be now for my own knowledge.

[kellyb]

This is going to sound like I'm being snarky, but I'm being completely serious.
What about Stevie Wonder?
He's completely blind, so I think any improvement would be reported in the media?
As far as ethics, go, he obviously wants to be healed, since he was considering getting some microchip to restore some vision (that probably won't work for him at all, according to the folks that designed it).

[kellyb]

Another idea:

Could you bring a bug back to life after freezing?
There's a bug expert here that could probably tell us what bugs definitely die when frozen at what temperatures for what lengths of time.

[Antranik1]

From what I understand with the way QT works, it's supposed to help accelerate the healing process. Isn't accelerating the healing process different than bringing insects/animals back from the dead? I'm being very honest and going to say that bug-idea sounds very strange as I'm not sure if QT can bring dead bugs back from the dead. If the bug expert wants to freeze some bugs, I guess I can try it, it would be a new experience for me anyway. But what would the aim be? To freeze some bugs until they should definitely be dead and then unfreeze them and see if they stayed alive because of the quantum touch?

So the good news is that the stevie wonder thing sounds awesome! All I could find out online about him was that he was given too much oxygen as a baby and became blind. What is that condition called? Are his eyes still functional but the part of his brain that controls the vision is messed up? Is it the other way around? Anyone else can shed some light on this? I'm willing to try it on him, why not! By the way, I've never tried working on blindness, but I don't see why not unless like I said, the person has glass eyes or something, then it would be fruitless.

[kellyb]

I'm pretty sure this is what Stevie Wonder has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinopathy_of_prematurity

I'll try to find it again, but somewhere there's an article on how that disorder played a huge role in the advent of the randomized controlled trial. Interesting story. :)

From what I understand with the way QT works, it's supposed to help accelerate the healing process. Isn't accelerating the healing process different than bringing insects/animals back from the dead? I'm being very honest and going to say that bug-idea sounds very strange as I'm not sure if QT can bring dead bugs back from the dead. If the bug expert wants to freeze some bugs, I guess I can try it, it would be a new experience for me anyway. But what would the aim be? To freeze some bugs until they should definitely be dead and then unfreeze them and see if they stayed alive because of the quantum touch?

I guess you could try to keep them alive during the freezing process? That should be the same thing as healing, right?

[Apathia]

Hi Good morning Linda,

I have been taking a critical look at QT and the reason why I have dedicated so much of my life toward it is because in the 3 years that I have been using it, almost everybody seems to feel the technique working on them. It's uncommon for people to not feel relief from whatever pain that ails them and very rare for them to not feel anything happening even temporarily.

I know where you're coming from with this, because that has been my experience as well. People feel better, and in many cases it does seem they recover faster from nonchronic illnesses. This effect is laregly anecdotal. Anecdote isn't a pejoritive thing. It can point to an interesting area for research.

There are a lot of studies that indicate that Energy Work relieves pain. The medical profession isn't much surprised at that. Pain is subjective. And while feelings of wellness are a part of what mean by being healthy, medical science focuses on objective conditions. Since TT, Reiki, and QT go on to make claims of curing even chronic illnesses and the existance of an "energy" or "lifeforce," this gets the attention either positive or negative. So far no study has shone Energy Work efficatious for curing chrnic ilnesses or regenerating lost limbs.

Why is it so difficult to test a medical condition?

Because what should be tested here is an objective, clearly observed condition and effect in response to that, rather than a subjective state on the part of the subject. Laying on of the hands, Mesmer hand waving, Reiki, Theraputic Touch, "Quantum" Touch, all have strong psycho-somatic effects that do appear to assait people in recovery from injury and non-chronic illness, at least on the subjective end. The various papers I've been able to find on the web, don't give this as a consistant picture, though. It's by its nature subjective.

What's telling is that though the human collective anecdotal experience reports psyho-somatic effects with Laying on of Hands et al, there's no experience of consistant, repeatable cures for objective medical, especially chronic condidtions. Had we been experincing this all along for thhousand of years, our medical practice would consist of Energy Work rather than drugs and corrective surgery.

I've got to run to work now. No time to correct spelling errors.

[fls]

Hi Good morning Linda,

I have been taking a critical look at QT and the reason why I have dedicated so much of my life toward it is because in the 3 years that I have been using it, almost everybody seems to feel the technique working on them.

What you have described here has been pretty much the opposite of a critical look. You have unabashedly attributed everything that happens to a specific effect of QT, even though we already know that we expect exactly the same things that you describe to happen as part of a non-specific placebo effect. What makes you think you can tell the difference?

It's uncommon for people to not feel relief from whatever pain that ails them and very rare for them to not feel anything happening even temporarily. I mean, what do you say to the situation that my mother told me voluntarily the following day that she had to adjust her bra-straps? I mean didn't something happen there?

Yes. Your mother had a change in a subjective perception. This is exactly the kind of effect that placebos provide.

How about following case that happened just 3 weeks ago with a friend. She complained that her back was hurting as she sat on the couch to watch tv together. Her father was there and said, oh let me massage you and was trying to do his best. He's not a pro, just wanted to try to help massage the pain away. He did that for 10-15 minutes and left the room. We're watching tv and the commercials come and I ask her if she's better? She says no so I ask her if she wants me to work on her while we watch tv, since we can both just do this while still being able to watch the tv, so we might as well. She agrees and I start the QT. She estimated her pain to be a 4-5 (out of 10) and in about 5-6 minutes (a bit after the commercials ended) she said thank you, the pain is gone. I asked her what # would you give it? She repeated, no it's gone, it's a zero. I was like wow ok.. so we get back in our positions and continue watching tv. I asked her how long has she had this back pain? She said it's been 4 days nonstop. We just realized what had happened and gave each other a high-five. Plus it never came back later.

So anyway, that's another anecdotal story. Didn't something happen there either? Things like this reinforce my mind that QT might have some therapeutic value because the rate at which someone feels the effects of it is not 20%, 30% it's more like 90%.

Placebo has been demonstrated to affect subjective perceptions and pain, without any affect on objective measures - the same thing that you have described with QT. Since we know the placebo effect always needs to be taken into consideration, how can you tell how much, if any, of your results can be attributed to a specific effect from QT? How do you know it isn't all just placebo effect?

Why is it so difficult to test a medical condition?

It is not difficult to test a medical condition. One would simply set up a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, or demonstrate a result that would otherwise be impossible (or at least highly unexpected). Since you can't set up a DBRPCT, you only chance was the demonstration of an incredibly remarkable outcome. But from what you have described, that's not the sort of thing that you see with QT when it comes to medical conditions. So I think your only other choice is a non-medical controlled trial (like the taste test you did earlier).

I'm looking for a wine-taster by the way and that will be done parallel to this but in the mean time I don't understand why this could be so difficult. If we practiced this level of skepticism for all drugs or treatments, we could surely find tons of holes in their tests as well, couldn't we?

Exactly!!! That's why we no longer think that using leeches as a cure-all is a good thing. All treatments are now subject to this level of skepticism, and what survives are those without the holes.

Maybe we can do a test with an animal or something. I'm stumped at the moment cause it feels like.. it just feels like.. we don't have the instruments and tools to properly test this.

If you're sincere, you can do some testing for yourself. You can remove some of the placebo affect by blinding your subjects - don't tell them that you are treating them (I'm not going to discuss the ethics of this as I think it's moot) or don't tell them when you are treating them. You can randomize the start of the treatment (use a die to pick a minute, hour or day). You can tell them you are treating them, and when, but secretly (and randomly - coin toss) choose to not treat them. It's not rigorous, but it's a start.

Linda

[JoeTheJuggler]

QT could be used for healing just about anything. So if there is something that can be observed accurately with the use of ultrasound, please let me know.
Burns?

If you could heal a burn with QT, I would be amazed. No need for x-rays or even ultrasound.

Your claim that it can heal just about anything seems to indicate that you can.

Edit: ditto melanoma, wounds, incisions, acne, rashes etc.
Edit: one sign of quackery is the panacea claim. Why would the same treatment be able to cure "just about anything"?


About the taste-changing power: you said you're no longer making that claim (after that claim was pretty much proven through demonstration to be false). Why then are you advertising for a wine-taster on Craig's List? Are you still making the claim but modifying it to be a barely-perceptible change in taste?

[fls]

Burns?

If you could heal a burn with QT, I would be amazed. No need for x-rays or even ultrasound.

Your claim that it can heal just about anything seems to indicate that you can.

I think s/he should be tested on things that s/he already knows s/he can treat or affect. Otherwise failure is meaningless.

About the taste-changing power: you said you're no longer making that claim (after that claim was pretty much proven through demonstration to be false). Why then are you advertising for a wine-taster on Craig's List? Are you still making the claim but modifying it to be a barely-perceptible change in taste?

I think that s/he feels her/his palate is unable to withstand the rigors of drinking all that soda (s/he has my sympathy :)), which is why s/he failed the taste test. Someone with some training in tasting may be able to do better.

Linda

[Antranik1]

I think that s/he feels her/his palate is unable to withstand the rigors of drinking all that soda (s/he has my sympathy :)), which is why s/he failed the taste test. Someone with some training in tasting may be able to do better.

Linda

Yeah exactly (i'm male btw). To everybody who still thinks that it's very easy to taste test, get a few cans each of pepsi and coke (or 7up and sierra mist) and just taste test them. Note the differences alternating between the two. You'll find how nerve wrecking it becomes to really figure out the differences.

I will try the random testing, it's pretty fun to do those anyway.

There's a person I know of who has sciatica pain that starts from their lower back and runs down their left leg till the end of the nerve sometimes. I would consider it to be chronic as it may fluctuate but it doesn't ever completely go away. If I were to work on this person, even with their knowing shouldn't the pain never go away? Or is our placebo effect so strong that it can even be accounted for healing chronic conditions?

[Antranik1]

Okay, so here's what I'm going to be doing. I'm going to be healing Stevie Wonder's eyes from distance. I will not be putting my hands on him and I'm not going to try contacting him. This is all going to be done from my mind essentially using the QT techniques.

The result I'm shooting for is to heal him of his blindness. Now I know there are varying degrees of blindness but I assume that if he starts seeing things he never was able to before and this makes the news, then that might have something to do with my healing sessions.

I don't really care whether you, the reader, think this is a good experiment or not for any sort of testing. And before you say, well that's not being open to critical thinking, hold your horses. I want to do this to prove to myself first and foremost that QT can or cannot be used to heal others because I'm the one trying this out as opposed to testing it with the participation of Stevie Wonders and any other volunteers/observers. Did I just say "hold your horses?" :boggled: If Mr. Stevie Wonder is healed of blindness, then you can rest assured that I will want to try this again, and again, and again. Repeatability is a good thing.

The actuality of the situation is pretty simple and probably boring to you because I am just some guy posting on the forums saying I'm going to be healing stevie wonder. That's really the only proof we have of anything if anything happens and I'm fine with that. If anything unexpected occurs, I would want to repeat it under the tightest of circumstances so that there would be greater legitimacy to any of this. And if this doesn't work, well I guess I can check-mark blindness off my imaginary list of 5000 tests I have planned (just kidding! haha). Anyway, the point of the matter is this, although you may have a million reasons why this is pointless, I'm doing this for myself, not for others.

[fls]

There's a person I know of who has sciatica pain that starts from their lower back and runs down their left leg till the end of the nerve sometimes. I would consider it to be chronic as it may fluctuate but it doesn't ever completely go away. If I were to work on this person, even with their knowing shouldn't the pain never go away? Or is our placebo effect so strong that it can even be accounted for healing chronic conditions?

Not healing, but it can (and often has) affect chronic symptoms. The presence or absence of a symptom may not have much of anything to do with any underlying pathology.

Linda

[Professor Yaffle]

What conclusions will you draw if there are no news reports of Stevie Wonder's vision improving?

The only good tests are ones that can prove you wrong.

[Capsid]

I'm bumping this thread only because I haven't read in the news that Stevie Wonder's sight has been restored, sadly.

[Soapy Sam]

If QT works on humans who don't know it's happening to them (interesting ethical question there), I presume it should also work on mice?

Laboratory mice.

Set up a control group. Make some mice ill. Apply QT. Record results.

Just like real, evil big pharma techs do.

Then publish the results- which ought to be reproducible, right?

[kellyb]

He played the day before yesterday, and appear to still be blind.
http://yourhereblog.mtv.com/2007/10/15/q-tip-brings-out-stevie-wonder-for-show-stopping-encore/