(The endless thread had been talking about who slept in the nude,
when I made this reply to an attack on Therapeutic Touch)
Posted by: Quackalicious | March 5, 2010 11:26
PM
Sorry nude sleepers, just skip over the following.
Oh, my, I need to quack my little duck head on this one.
On hands on “energy” treatments. Wasn’t it some
13th century king that isolated orphans to see what a lack of human contact would do with disastrous results? Touch is helpful
for infants and individuals in pain, and aids outcomes throughout standard medicine. Having someone touch you is an effective
treatment for anxiety, and alters cortisol levels. So the real question is whether any special energy field exists, or whether
“thinking positive thoughts” about someone can help them. The Stephen Barrett (quackwatch) organized “study”
with some skeptic’s child as “tester” was just a circus to gain publicity. He “disproved” something
that had something like eighty studies showing positive blood alterations, and people continue to study the same phenomenon
today. Here’s a nice study, single blinded, on volunteers. Notice no one is using children to generate press coverage.
(Get your flames on, people!)
Brain Res Bull. 2010 Jan 15;81(1):66-72.
A randomised controlled single-blind trial of the effects of Reiki
and positive imagery on well-being and salivary cortisol.
Bowden D, Goddard L, Gruzelier J.
Psychology Department, Goldsmiths, University of London, ITC Building,
New Cross, London SE14 6NW, United Kingdom. deborahebowden@hotmail.co.uk
The study investigated whether participants who received Reiki would
show greater health and well-being benefits than a group who received no Reiki. A method of blinding participants to Reiki
was also tested, where non-contact Reiki or No-Reiki with random assignment was given to 35 healthy psychology undergraduates
whose attention was absorbed in one of three tasks involving self-hypnosis/relaxation. Participants experienced ten 20-min
intervention sessions over a period of two and a half to 12 weeks. Reiki was directed by the experimenter who sat behind the
participants as they were absorbed in the tasks. Self-report measures of illness symptoms, mood and sleep were assessed pre-post-intervention
as was salivary cortisol. While the Reiki group had a tendency towards a reduction in illness symptoms, a substantive increase
was seen in the No-Reiki. The Reiki group also had a near-significant comparative reduction in stress, although they also
had significantly higher baseline illness symptoms and stress scores. The Reiki blinding was successful - the groups did not
differ statistically in their beliefs regarding group membership. The results are suggestive that the Reiki buffered the substantive
decline in health in the course of the academic year seen in the No-Reiki group.
PMID: 19819311
(lots of swearing and name calling)
Posted by: Quackalicious | March 6, 2010 2:57
PM
Could someone at least trash the study I posted? Honestly, people.
Josh, I refer you to the Russell Brand video link on www.maloneymedical.com
under Quackery (now the bottom of the menu, because it isn’t as important). I think “white boy” might be
a future official title.
Gracious, if you are going to try and attack someone, at least get
the phobia right. It’s needles, not blood. I don’t care about blood, copper, iron or baking soda flavored (have
you had that checked out?) I could do minor surgery just fine, I just get a vasovagal response when someone shoves a needle
in my arm and decided it wouldn’t be a great thing for me to do office blood draws. The hospital labs do great, and
I don’t need to worry about transport. And thank you very much, I could get blood out of a stone. Intense phobia makes
one very, very focused on proper technique.
As to the poor person who does the foot baths that I mention on
my site, I have already undergone the “ritual” one of you suggested. Yes, most of the stuff in the tub is the
electrodes, but the color changes all the time, and when I had her switching the current I could definitely feel the shift.
Putting your feet in with live electricity is pretty interesting. I don’t have any data on foot bath benefits, but she
does great massage and the foot baths are a side thing for her.
I also list a whole range of other people, primarily as a public
service to people looking for someone who does a specific therapy. Why pick on the foot bath person?
Some people pay for bacon, some people pay for foot baths, some
people waste their money on snowmobiles. Why do you all care so much? Is it foot bath envy? Admit it.
(assorted swearing and this reasonable response)
Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 3:14 PM
Quackalicious #70 wrote:
Could someone at least trash the study I posted? Honestly, people.
I don't have the expertise to analyze this specific study, but I
will give you brief general critique:
First of all, 'chi energy' or some other form of vitalism is an
extraordinary claim, and it would take more than one study to establish it, even if this study is all its cracked up to be.
Second; when studies which support supernatural or paranormal claims
are analyzed by people who do have the necessary expertise, they are almost always found to have significant flaws, ones which
would preclude their publication in top-drawer journals. Those that don't have obvious problems, don't get replicated. Or,
can't be replicated by people who aren't already deeply committed to knowing that they're true.
There is a difference between science done to see if something is
correct, and science done to show that something is correct. A lot of badly-done studies do not add up to one good one. I
seriously suspect that this study fails on this level.
Third; there's the little problem of what Dr. Harriet Hall calls
"tooth fairy science." Before you study the effects of healing energy, you need to establish that its practitioners are actually
sensing something. This was the import of the Rosa study which you so casually rejected. If, under controlled conditions,
people who claim to be able to "sense" chi energy with their hands cannot tell the difference between a human body and no
human body, then there is nothing to study.
Fourth; in order to assume that there is a special kind of energy
which only a small group of maverick sensitives can feel, you pretty much have to assume a massive conspiracy among scientists
in general. Not just pharmaceutical companies, but the entire enterprise of competing disciplines across the board. This is
implausible, and more than a little flattering to the maverick sensitives.
Fifth; it is very, very easy to be fooled by "clinical experience"
in matters involving health. There are so many confounding factors, and so many ways that bias can color the way outcomes
are perceived. Someone once defined 'clinical experience' as "making the same mistakes over and over again, with increasing
confidence."
The underlying problem is not with you; the problem lies with the
human propensity to err -- particularly when motivations are high and noble. You've fallen victim.
The specific problem which does relate to you, personally, has to
do with carelessness, and the subtle form of arrogance that creeps in when motivations are high and noble.
My take.
Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 3:25 PM
Quackalicious #70 wrote:
Some people pay for bacon, some people pay for foot baths, some
people waste their money on snowmobiles. Why do you all care so much?
I don't understand this question. Are you saying that you yourself
don't care whether or not any of the alternative modalities really work, as long as they provide a placebo effect, and someone
goes away happy? They feel better, and they thank you, personally. So it ought to not matter to anyone else.
It sounds to me like you're advocating fraud, as long as it isn't
caught. As others have pointed out, it does matter, and it does get caught, and it does cause harm. If a pharmaceutical company
deliberately cut corners, cheated, and put out a medicine they knew was a placebo -- would they get a free pass from you,
if they have a nice ad campaign which convinces people they feel sooo much better, just like in the commercials?
You're in an odd territory here...
Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 3:35 PM
@ Quackalicious --
While you're here (assuming you still are), I wonder if you could
answer a question I've wanted to ask you:
What are your feelings concerning Andreas Moritz: is he a cancer
quack? Do you condemn his methods, and his "theories" on the causes of, and cures for, cancer?
Posted by: Quackalicious | March 6, 2010 10:32
PM
Yay, an actual attack as opposed to random threats and swear words!
I feel so validated. You should all know that I don’t really make Therapeutic Touch, Reiki, or foot baths a focus in
my practice, but I will act as their spokesperson here.
Nerd of Redhead wanted a Nature article. Even homeopathy has appeared
in Nature, but got immediately pounced on by the skeptics. Here’s the defense link (old news, Benveniste for those who
know this one already): http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,123 How about the Annals of Internal Medicine. Cochrane?
I’ve got both below on Therapeutic Touch
For Ol’Greg, we’ve got large studies of long term, hospital
based results for Naturopathic medicine, but I refer you to Dr. Novella’s “homeopaths on the run” comments
page for my comments, the research link, and Enzo trashing the link without reading the study. I’ve finally got Dr.
Novella to come out and play, but my really cool ALS idea was put in “wait mode” instead of just posted. I guess
he wants to read it through before it goes on the blog. I must be that scary.
I didn’t casually throw away the Rosa study on Therapeutic
Touch. Other people have thrown it away for me: Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;9(1):58-64.A nurse-statistician reanalyzes
data from the Rosa therapeutic touch study. Cox T. “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.” PMID: 12564352
In the meantime, the Therapeutic Touch nurses didn’t stop
doing research just because Dr. Barrett yelled “boo!” Nurs Clin North Am. 2007 Jun;42(2):243-59, vi. Energy-based
modalities. Engebretson J, Wardell DW. “Research on touch therapies is still in the early stages of development. Studies
of Therapeutic Touch, Healing Touch, and Reiki are quite promising; however, at this point, they can only suggest that these
healing modalities have efficacy in reducing anxiety; improving muscle relaxation; aiding in stress reduction, relaxation,
and sense of well-being; promoting wound healing; and reducing pain. The multidimensional aspects of healing inherent in patient
care continue to be expanded and facilitated by our understanding and application of energy therapies.” PMID: 17544681
I know, they are “only nurses,” (give me a veteran nurse
over a snot-nosed doctor any day) so here’s the latest Cochrane answer to whether touch has any effect on pain. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 8;(4):CD006535. “Touch therapies may have a modest effect in pain relief. More studies on
HT and Reiki in relieving pain are needed” But we all knew that. Moms kiss and make it better. People need a hug. There
are chemical pathways fed by human touch.
Distance energy work is a different matter. Let’s call it
prayer because that’s the most common form. I’m citing the 2007 Cochrane because the 2009 Cochrane has other Cochrane
researchers yelling at them. “The evidence presented so far is interesting enough to justify further study into the
human aspects of the effects of prayer. However it is impossible to prove or disprove in trials any supposed benefit that
derives from God's response to prayer.” Can you guess the prejudice of the author? The 2009 Cochrane writers think prayer
studies are a waste of time, can you guess what they believe? Researcher beliefs flavor every medical study, which is really
difficult for hard scientists to get their heads around. Medical researchers don’t just massage data, they throw data
in the garbage if it doesn’t fit what they want to prove.
In terms of nondenominational “noncontact” therapeutic
touch: Ann Intern Med. 2000 Jun 6;132(11):903-10 “The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult
to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed
a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study.” Ernst posted later on to say he thought it
was more placeboey now, but didn’t redo the analysis.
I think Ol’ Greg wanted me to stop hurting people and here’s
the reality: we don’t, at least in the kind of holistic practice I do. Good study on holistic practice: Int J Adolesc
Med Health. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):281-97 “Interpretation: Intensive, holistic non-drug medicine is helpful for physical,
sexual, psychological, psychiatric and existential problems and is completely safe for the patient. The therapeutic value
TV = NNH/NNT > 5,000. Altogether about 18,000 patients treated with different subtypes of CHM in four different countries
have now been evaluated for effects, side effects and adverse events, with similar results.”
David M. wanted to know if the foot bath is a kind of massage and
did I feel the current. Yes, I did feel the current, but only slightly, otherwise I would have been a cooked duck. And yes,
a warm foot soak is a kind of massage, with or without electrodes in the water. The point about the water changing is that
even though the electrodes were the same, sometimes the water was an oily black and sometimes it was frothy. So some sort
of chemical interaction is taking place with the feet. In terms of studies, of course warm foot baths decrease adrenal “fight
or flight” activity and increase “rest and digest” activity. Nothing on the electrode component, but it
does keep your mind from wandering and you get to watch a chemical reaction while you relax.
I think that’s everything. Oh, yes, Sastra wanted to know
how much I know about Andreas. Honestly, I met the man through Hawkins’ site, briefly when I was shut down and was busy
blogging everyone. He’d been trying for months to get Hawkins so was glad to take credit. When Hawkins went down a huge
number of other Wordpress sites went down. He was down for the weekend and back on Monday. Hawins never lost his Without Apology
blog site on Wordpress, which doesn’t make any sense if they were actually shutting him down. I’ve emailed Myers
several other fun facts, but he doesn’t take responsibility for things he starts.
Is Andreas a Cancer Quack? I’ve never even looked at his website.
I’ve got enough to do defending myself here. Ask him.
(random insults, swearing and this reply)
Posted by: Sastra | March 6, 2010 11:30 PM
Quackalicious #290 wrote:
I didn’t casually throw away the Rosa study on Therapeutic
Touch. Other people have thrown it away for me:
No, the alternative health journals have not managed to either undermine
the Rosa study, nor address the basic problem with Therapeutic Touch: in a controlled situation, practitioners cannot demonstrate
its existence. For example, they cannot tell which hand is injured, and which hand is not injured. I realize that you don't
care for James Randi, but you should realize that getting the $i million prize should be a simple thing -- if the TT practitioners
can really sense energy fields. If Randi is not liked, then all the better when you walk away with the money. He does not
set up the tests himself, you know. They are set up by mutually-agreed upon, neutral experts in designing controlled studies.
I think it's interesting that you both conflate TT with actual massage
(as when you talk about the benefits of touch), and extol the virtues of TT's ability to reduce stress and anxiety, aid in
relaxation, and so forth -- all normal benefits of massage. It sounds to me like placebo.
It also sounds to me like you're advocating a mishmash of science-based
medicine, common sense, useful placebos, useless placebos, dubious remedies, and out-and-out nonsense, and don't quite know
how to distinguish between them -- and assume we can't, either. We're just 'against everything.'
And, again you bring up the idea of the evil conspiracy of mainstream
researchers throwing out genuine results, and ignore the problems inherent in journals which were formed for no other purpose
than to show that alternative medicine works. Alt med journals are not trustworthy sources. And random studies in better journals
need replication ... and can't get it.
Is Andreas a Cancer Quack? I’ve never even looked at his website.
Really? Given that your names are now coupled together because of
this incident, I would have thought you'd at the very least be curious. I asked because I'm trying to figure out whether you
will always defend anyone who is "alternative" -- or whether there are some limits, even with you.
#424Posted by: Quackalicious | March 7, 2010
12:11 PM
Dear Sastra,
I’m not using alt.med journal citations. I didn’t even
use holistic nursing citations. As far as I know, http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/ are the standard by which evidence-based
medicine is judged. A statistical expert goes through all existing studies, crunches the numbers and gives a recommendation.
A close second are the annals of internal medicine, where a respected expert on alternative medicine, in this case Ernst (who
hates alternative medicine) is asked to give an analysis of all existing studies.
What I showed you was the best evidence available on TT. It trumps
a single, small scale study by Barrett. And, no, it’s not all positive studies, but there are moderate benefits to pain,
which makes perfect sense. The other study was a nursing review of the multiple other TT studies.
It’s the Cochrane Collaboration, not James Randi, that decides
what is evidence-based medicine and what is not. When I emailed him a few years back, he claimed he knew better than Cochrane
or any other researcher. The man is a magician, not a statistician, and he’s created a bubble around himself by ignoring
that reasonably intelligent PhDs around the world might actually be able to give a better picture of alternative medical effects
than something he sets up himself in a lab. If I somehow managed to jump through all his hoops I seriously doubt I’d
get paid.
You mentioned the placebo effect. What is that, really? According
to The Cochrane Collaborative Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD003974 the “sugar pill” placebo effect
doesn’t really exist anymore. The researchers compared all active drug to placebo to no intervention patient trials
and concluded that placebos no longer outperform no intervention. There is some effect in terms of pain, but even that was
highly variable, and the pain decrease seen in the TT study I cited before was greater than what could reasonably be expected
from a placebo.
We don’t live in the fifties anymore when patients believed
anyone in a white coat would fix them with a pill, and today patients are more likely to experience a nocebo effect (side
effects, nausea, etc.) from an inactive pill.
But the placebo effect is alive and well if you define it as hope
and trust build up in a good doctor/patient relationship. It motivates patients to do a variety of changes that affect their
health, improving outcomes despite the activity or inactivity of whatever was given. This is taught in medical schools as
a good bedside manner, and is the basis of good medicine. Often an effective drug treatment is not available for an illness,
but the doctor continues to see the chronically ill patient and the patient benefits from the care. In our ever hurrying world,
the shortening of patient visits undermines that relationship, ultimately harming the patient through incomplete histories
and clinicians who don’t really have time to care.
In response to your interest, I did look at Andreas’ site.
I cannot defend him. Art and art objects are fine, books are fine, but I have difficulty with anyone broadly prescribing basically
one set of cures for everyone. Andreas’ had some interesting things to say about chemotherapy, but it all hinges on
Abel’s chemotherapy review in 1991. Maybe Abel wrote a letter to the Lancet in 1991, but he didn’t review chemotherapy,
so whatever he wrote was not peer reviewed, and doesn’t justify disregarding an entire field of medicine.
I would also not defend chemotherapy in a number of adult cancers,
because the outcomes data doesn’t support it, but I have been incredibly impressed by the child leukemia collaboration,
where they are getting better and better results because they act as a group rather than as independent researchers competing
for research dollars.
In terms of my “conspiracy” theories, I cited two Cochrane
studies on prayer, 2007 and 2009, where respected researchers came to different conclusions, apparently based on their personal
beliefs. It is hardly a conspiracy theory to point out that medical researchers are capable of dumping studies they don’t
like in favor of those they do. I believe we have legislation now to force pharmaceutical companies to reveal negative studies
rather than simply not publishing them. Vioxx’s producer evidently had some idea of what the drug was capable of doing
prior to wide release, but suppressed the data.
Finally, I think it’s time we got back to bacon. Anyone see
this recent study? J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Jan 13;58(1):465-72. Production of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) enriched bacon. Evidently,
good for you bacon will not be widely available because of “problems of off-odors and off-flavors.” Bacon that
smells like fish…mmmm.
Oh, and Monty Python…spam, spam, spam, bacon, and spam. Why
did those two float in and out of that sketch? I never got that part.
I think Myers should dress like a Viking and sing the spam song
on Youtube as the start of the next thread. I have a children's Viking hat he could borrow. It would be tres chic.
(no reply worth noting, one snide comment)
