| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
The 1st batch of "evidence", though I don;t like speaking in such dry terms about energy healing, are:
1. Dr. Daniel Benor's Spiritual Healing
2. Dr. James Oschman's Energy Medicine
3. Dr. Kenneth Sancier's "Multifaceted Health Benefits of Medical Qigong"
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For a hilarious, yet serious review of Oschman's Energy Medicine, go here:
http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-energy-medicine-scientific.html
Here's a sample:
"In the foreword, Candace Pert sets a strange tone for a scientific book by describing how Dr. Oschman "pulled" some energy away from her "stagnant" liver. She tells us the body is "a liquid crystal under tension capable of vibrating at a number of frequencies, some in the range of visible light," with "different emotional states, each with a predominant peptide ligand-induced 'tone' as an energetic pattern which propagates throughout the bodymind.." If you are hoping the book will explain what this means, you will be disappointed."
"According to Oschman, "In the past, the most remarkable success stories of complementary therapists (as well as healings in the religious context) were often dismissed because there was no logical explanation." Here he makes two unsupported assumptions: (1) that complementary therapists have had a greater success rate than can be explained by placebo, natural course of disease, and chance; and (2) that dismissal is not simply due to inadequate evidence. He accepts kinds of evidence that most scientists would not. He believes that Mesmer's "animal magnetism" was unjustly maligned, because in the scientific paradigm, "if a phenomenon is difficult to measure or does not fit into any of the emerging disciplines, it is excluded from investigation." This is not true. No phenomenon that is shown to exist is ever excluded from scientific investigation. In the case of Mesmer, no documented phenomenon was there to exclude." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Woland wrote: |
For a hilarious, yet serious review of Oschman's Energy Medicine, go here:
http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-energy-medicine-scientific.html
Here's a sample:
"In the foreword, Candace Pert sets a strange tone for a scientific book by describing how Dr. Oschman "pulled" some energy away from her "stagnant" liver. She tells us the body is "a liquid crystal under tension capable of vibrating at a number of frequencies, some in the range of visible light," with "different emotional states, each with a predominant peptide ligand-induced 'tone' as an energetic pattern which propagates throughout the bodymind.." If you are hoping the book will explain what this means, you will be disappointed."
"According to Oschman, "In the past, the most remarkable success stories of complementary therapists (as well as healings in the religious context) were often dismissed because there was no logical explanation." Here he makes two unsupported assumptions: (1) that complementary therapists have had a greater success rate than can be explained by placebo, natural course of disease, and chance; and (2) that dismissal is not simply due to inadequate evidence. He accepts kinds of evidence that most scientists would not. He believes that Mesmer's "animal magnetism" was unjustly maligned, because in the scientific paradigm, "if a phenomenon is difficult to measure or does not fit into any of the emerging disciplines, it is excluded from investigation." This is not true. No phenomenon that is shown to exist is ever excluded from scientific investigation. In the case of Mesmer, no documented phenomenon was there to exclude." |
Hilarious, until proven to be scientific 20 years from now~
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
Second batch (1sy concerning Judeo-Christian prayer):
1. Author: Randolph C. Byrd, M.D.
Institution: Medical Service, San Francisco General Medical Center, CA.
Source: Southern Medical Journal 1988 Jul; 81(7): 826-9
Abstract: The therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian God, one of the oldest forms of therapy, has had little attention in the medical literature. To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). While hospitalized, the first group received IP by participating Christians praying outside the hospital; the control group did not. At entry, chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after entry (P less than .01). Multivariant analysis separated the groups on the basis of the outcome variables (P less than .0001). The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU.
2. Dr. Larry Dossey, Healing Words and Prayer is Good Medicine
My take on the postivie effects of certain types of energy healing is not that it is the intervention of some deity, but either the power of the Mind, or some as yet to be proven universal energy work.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Woland
Joined: 10 May 2006 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| Hilarious, until proven to be scientific 20 years from now~ |
Wanna bet? (Time is on My Side plays in the background)
Seriously - so you acknowledge that Oschman's stuff hasn't been validated. I guess we can exclude it.
I also don't think it will ever be validated because so many of his assumptions (see the review I linked) have been shown to be nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| Woland wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| Hilarious, until proven to be scientific 20 years from now~ |
Wanna bet? (Time is on My Side plays in the background)
Seriously - so you acknowledge that Oschman's stuff hasn't been validated. I guess we can exclude it.
I also don't think it will ever be validated because so many of his assumptions (see the review I linked) have been shown to be nonsense. |
I acknowledge it hasn't been validated by people with predispositions not to believe in energy healing, but no, we cannot exclude it. I do not place my confidence in what you do or do not think. Nonsense is relative.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk

Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Location: somewhere in Korea
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
I acknowledge it hasn't been validated by people with predispositions not to believe in energy healing, but no, we cannot exclude it.
Peace |
I believe this says all that needs to be said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:13 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
Third batch:
1. Dr. Dale Matthews, The Faith Factor
2. Dr. Koenig, "Intercessory Prayer and Cardiac Outcomes" in American Heart Journal 142, 760-797.
3. Dr. Adina Shore, "Long-Term Effect of Energetic Healing on Symptoms pf Psychological Depression and Stress." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
Even Dr. Herbert Benson, the doctor supposedly proving prayer ineffective, cannot make up his mind: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s13887.htm
This interview is from 1998. The New York Times article is from 2006. What is Dr. Benson's real, scientific opinion? It seems to change every few years.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| I acknowledge it hasn't been validated by people with predispositions not to believe in energy healing, but no, we cannot exclude it. I do not place my confidence in what you do or do not think. Nonsense is relative. |
From the conclusion of the review offered by Woland:
"Science is not a matter of cherry picking whatever supports your hypothesis. Rather it is a self correcting methodology where all the evidence is considered and critiqued, and competing hypothesis are tested. This book masquerades as science, but it amounts to little more than speculation and polemic in support of a preconceived belief. The tragedy is that energy medicine believers now have a book whose very title may lead them to think there is "proof" that their experiences have a scientific basis. Many scientifically na�ve readers will be convinced. Critical thinkers will not."
Just in case some people have forgotten what 'science' is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| I acknowledge it hasn't been validated by people with predispositions not to believe in energy healing, but no, we cannot exclude it. I do not place my confidence in what you do or do not think. Nonsense is relative. |
From the conclusion of the review offered by Woland:
"Science is not a matter of cherry picking whatever supports your hypothesis. Rather it is a self correcting methodology where all the evidence is considered and critiqued, and competing hypothesis are tested. This book masquerades as science, but it amounts to little more than speculation and polemic in support of a preconceived belief. The tragedy is that energy medicine believers now have a book whose very title may lead them to think there is "proof" that their experiences have a scientific basis. Many scientifically na�ve readers will be convinced. Critical thinkers will not."
Just in case some people have forgotten what 'science' is. |
One of my points throughout this thread is that it is ridiculous for scientists to cry "victory" when scientific "facts" change so often. See my post above your quoted response. Dr. Benton changed his mind from 1998 - 2006. What's to say the next study won't change it back?
I know what science is, and I know how often it changes. It's one of the reasons I love science. It's definitely more metaphysical than a lot of people on this board want to accept. The universe is mysterious, and for anyone with human intelligence to think they can pin it down is ridiculous.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
And from this interview with Dr. Benson (http://hmiworld.org/hmi/issues/Nov_Dec_2004/forum_pf.html) it seems that he simply re-interprets the traditional definitions of prayer to fit with his materialistic mindset, though it is clear that he is a friend of alternative therapies.
Peace
Last edited by seoulunitarian on Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher

Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Novernae
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Even Dr. Herbert Benson, the doctor supposedly proving prayer ineffective, cannot make up his mind: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s13887.htm
This interview is from 1998. The New York Times article is from 2006. What is Dr. Benson's real, scientific opinion? It seems to change every few years.
Peace |
How is an opinion changing with the evidence a negative thing? Dr Benson set out to test your beliefs, not to disprove them. He was trying to improve upon a poorly designed study that had questioned prayer's effectiveness. He was very open about his belief in prayer's benefits. He did a study, the results were contrary to his hypothesis, his hypothesis modified with the evidence. That's how science works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Location: Easy Street.
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How on earth can science prove the efficacy of prayer? That's ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|