Info about reiki

[Kilted]

Hi there, Im just wondering if any of you know if there has been any studies done into the veracity reiki. My mum believes in lots of new age... ideas, but ive been trying to slowly talk her into the idea that there is no science behind them, and that, if real, they would rewrite the laws of physics as we know them. She is not an irrational person and is willing to read journals to find out more, even if they say theres nothing to Reiki. Im not sure where to start in my search, so if anyone knows of any studies that have been done, that would be helpful.

Cheers.

D.

 

[Luke T.]

There's a 1998 JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) article in which a nine year old girl debunked therapeutic touch if you can find it.

 

[Luke T.]

At age 9, for her fourth grade science fair project, Emily Rosa devised an experiment challenging the therapeutic touch procedure. At age 11, when the result of her study was published in The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), Emily became the youngest person ever to publish a paper in a major scientific journal. Her research made the front page of the New York Times and was featured on national television and radio.
Therapeutic touch (TT) was conceived in the 1970's by Dr. Dolores Krieger, author of Accepting Your Power to Heal. It is based on the theory that a person's body emits an external energy field a few inches outside the skin that feels like "warm Jell-O or warm foam." According to TT practitioners, people who are ill have hot or cold tingly spots in their fields. TT practitioners say they can help treat and cure medical problems such as Alzheimer's and cancer by hovering their hands a few inches over a patient's body without actually touching him or her. They claim that doing so adjusts the patient's energy field by removing "congestion."

This TT method has been taught to thousands of people in over 100 colleges and universities in 75 countries, used in scores of hospitals, and promoted by leading nursing organizations and journals. TT practitioners insist that the human energy field is real, and people can be trained to feel it and use it to heal patients. Many doctors disagree, since they have never seen proof that the human energy fields exist.

After watching a TT videotape with her mother, Emily questioned the procedure and, for her science project, set out to test its validity. She designed a cardboard screen with cutout armholes that separated her from her subjects. TT practitioners placed both hands, palms up, through the openings. Based on a flip of a coin, Emily decided whether to hover her unseen hand over the practitioners right or left hand. The practitioner was then asked to detect Emily's energy field by naming the hand over which Emily's was hovering.

Emily conducted 280 tests using 21 practitioners who had between 1 to 27 years TT experience. Each subject underwent 10 trials. The practitioners were correct less than half the time. If they had randomly guessed, they would have scored better or at least 50 percent correct.

Emily recorded her study and submitted it to JAMA with help from: her mother, Linda Rosa, who is a registered nurse and a member of the National TT Study Group and the National Council Against Health Fraud; her stepfather, Larry Sarner, a mathematician and member of the TT Study Group; and Dr. Stephen Barrett, board chairman of Quackwatch in Allentown, Pennsylvania, a nonprofit group that publishes information on the Internet about questionable medical practices.

JAMA editor Dr. George Lundberg published his message with Emily's article. "Practitioners should disclose these results to patients, third-party payers should question whether they should pay for this procedure, and patients should save their money unless or until additional honest experimentation demonstrates and actual effect."

Emily Rosa's Advice
"I think you should be open-minded to any scientific test. There are still lots of things to prove and disprove. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

http://thekidshalloffame.com/CustomPage4.html

 

[logical muse]

There's a 1998 JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) article in which a nine year old girl debunked therapeutic touch if you can find it.

Here it is: Emily Rosa's JAMA paper (pdf)

 

[RichardR]

Actually, TT isn’t Reiki, although they both claim to manipulate “qi” by some unexplained magic means.
Anyway, there are no good studies I am aware of that show Reiki works in any way other than suggestion.

 

[Kilted]

Ok, im not looking particularly for studies that show reiki works, im looking for studies that involved testing reiki under scientific conditions.

 

[StoatBringer]

Ok, im not looking particularly for studies that show reiki works, im looking for studies that involved testing reiki under scientific conditions.

I suspect reiki practitioners have more sense than to allow themselves to be properly tested, as they know full well that they will fail.

A good starting place is probably http://www.skepdic.com/reiki.html

It's all a load of bollocks, frankly.

 

[Kilted]

Ive had a look at some journal abstracts online (i cant get the full text off campus) and there dont seem to be any studies which set out to examine whether reiki actually works or not. (By works i mean as in the "energy healing" type way rather than just by relaxation/placebo/attention). Also there are a few articles that seem rather woo, which is to be expected i guess.

Just for your info, the studies that did examine the affects of reiki all found (according to their abstracts) no statistical difference between the reiki group and the control group, and most of them suggest further study to be required.

 

[Rachel1031]

My sister is into Reiki (she got "certified" in it somehow) but otherwise is a norman physical therapist. So I can't be too mean about this to her face. And also, once she did it to me, and I could have *sworn* I felt something - but that is the power of suggestion.

Do you know that Reiki practitioners believe they can give "massages" over long distances and even time?

Ah well. I have to laugh that people pay for *not* getting massaged!

 

[VoloVersio]

Do you know that Reiki practitioners believe they can give "massages" over long distances and even time?

Yes, it's apparently part of becoming a 2nd level Reiki practitioner. My best friend and her boyfriend are into this stuff. Their teacher is now a part of our circle of friends. She's the one who showed them how to make it easier to get licenses.

Reiki masters believe that everyone has the power to use reiki, but to magnify that power, you must first recieve an attunement, which of course costs dinero.

I had my friend's boyfriend perform reiki on me, and other than the warmth of his hands (which is natural, seeing as he is a mammal), I felt nothing. He ended by diagnosing me as having stress and allergies, neither of which I really do have. During it, though, he told me that my skepticism was "repelling" his energy.

Gee. How convenient.

 

[Kilted]

Reiki masters believe that everyone has the power to use reiki, but to magnify that power, you must first recieve an attunement, which of course costs dinero.

...And the reason theyll give for charging is that they're trying to make a living like everyone else.

Also the bit about skepticism repelling the energy is weird as my mum swears that you dont need to believe in reiki for it to work. Looks like theyve got the story muddled somewhere along the line

 

[Mojo]

Ok, im not looking particularly for studies that show reiki works, im looking for studies that involved testing reiki under scientific conditions.

Well, I sincerely doubt that you'll find any that do both.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Kilted- I became curious about Reiki a year or so ago . I visited a "therapist" who generously gave me several hours of her time free to discuss it and try a couple of experiments. She seemed quite sincere , but was, in my opinion, simply imagining an effect where none existed.
She diagnosed three sites of problems in me- neck, lumbar spine and left knee. All have indeed suffered trauma, but in any man aged fifty, at least two of these are likely to be sites of wear or injury. A physiotherapist the following week diagnosed problems at all three sites simply from seeing me walk. I suspect the Reiki lady did the same - though she was likely not consciously aware she did it.

She did not detect the kidney problem which had hospitalised me ten days earlier and did so again a few days later. Nor did she pick up several other areas which have suffered damage. (I've knocked around a bit). She also said that the site of a "distortion" in the energy field need not be physically contiguous with the site of trauma- which is a perfect and unassailable get out clause.

She said she was able to sense my energy field quite clearly. Yet when I asked her to close her eyes, she was unable to sense when I moved closer or further away from her. ie she could not sense movement in the field. This I find particularly telling. Anyone claiming the ability should be able to work blindfold.

The three levels of " attunement " are unquestionably a cash cow for teachers of the business. (And world wide it is a big business).

The claim to be able to "send Reiki " to a specific target , anywhere in the world, raises questions of direction and intention. By what information is the energy supposed to reach its target? Several people have "sent Reiki" to me at prearranged times. Despite sitting calmly and concentratng on sensation, I felt nothing. However- if you do sit still long enough , concentrating on inner sensation, you will eventually think you feel something.

The other assertion of Reikiologists which defies common sense, is that the energy is always "good".
Now energy is energy. People claiming to feel Reiki often describe a sensation of heat- which is reasonable if someone puts his hands less than half an inch from you. But heating of tissue is not necessarily a good thing.
If it were possible to remotely direct energy to the body of a person at any point in the world, the potential for use as a weapon of asassination would exist. Any uncontrolled transmission of energy into a human is potentially fraught with risk. If Reiki is at all possible, then it needs urgent regulation and would surely already be in use as a weapon. (Maybe that's what happened to Ariel Sharon?)

Fortunately , there is no evidence at all that it is possible.

Having said this, I've met several Reiki practitioners, all of them genuine and well intentioned people, who don't make a lot of money out of what they do. They are among the hardest of believers to convince, because they really do mean well.

It's an easy thing to test yourself though. Ask one friend if he can sense a third person's energy field with his eyes shut. If so, blindfold him and ask them again, but have the third person move silently away.

Video of this may help convince him how wrong he is.
And if he's right- hey $1,000,000 coming right up!

 

[Mercutio]

Ive had a look at some journal abstracts online (i cant get the full text off campus) and there dont seem to be any studies which set out to examine whether reiki actually works or not. (By works i mean as in the "energy healing" type way rather than just by relaxation/placebo/attention). Also there are a few articles that seem rather woo, which is to be expected i guess.

Just for your info, the studies that did examine the affects of reiki all found (according to their abstracts) no statistical difference between the reiki group and the control group, and most of them suggest further study to be required.

Actually, Kilted, I think there are a few available, if you have access to the EBSCOHOST database. I am not at my office now, but if my memory serves, there are some studies published.

A quick look online shows me my memory is not what it should be, or else I have forgotten where I looked before. Hm...

Hemming & Maher, in the British Journal of Community Nursing (Oct 2005). "Complementary therapies in palliative care: A summary of current evidence."
abstract: "Complementary therapies are often cited as a possible alternative to the management of symptoms in palliative care, as another element in the armoury for coping with unmanageable problems. But how efficacious are these therapies, and what is the evidence to support their use in symptom management? Patients who are in the terminal stages of illness or require palliative care are in a very vulnerable position, so are they being exploited or are there real benefits from using complementary therapies? This article review some of the evidence currently available."

 

[Mercutio]

Well, I sincerely doubt that you'll find any that do both.

Actually, there appear to be quite a few doctoral dissertations that, at least, attempt to do so. I have no access to the full text, though, so I have no idea whether the methodology is airtight.

 

[VoloVersio]

...And the reason theyll give for charging is that they're trying to make a living like everyone else.

My best friend now works as a psychic. I really have to support it as she isn't financially the most fortunate person in the world and seems to be doing better as a psychic than as a clerk.

It's just very disturbing to me that she does make more money shuffling cards than she did basically having to manage a store full of incompetent and lazy coworkers.

Also the bit about skepticism repelling the energy is weird as my mum swears that you dont need to believe in reiki for it to work. Looks like theyve got the story muddled somewhere along the line

Which brings me to the point that many reiki masters seem to disagree with each other on the specifics of their practice, most times without knowing they are.

The reiki master I mentioned earlier that is now part of our group of friends...she really is such a sweet and genuine human being. I do hold her in very high esteem. Her practice of reiki isn't fraudulent, because she earnestly believes in what she does. That obviously won't make me any more willing to believe in reiki, or any of the other mumbo jumbo they've all recently gotten involved with (crystals, gemstones, pendulums).

 

[RichardR]

I got hold of a copy of "Spiritual Healing: Professional Supplement" which I was told had "proof" that Reiki works. It doesn't. The only "studies" including Reiki were the following:

Page 201-3 - Human Hemoglobin Levels and Reiki

This study purportedly shows Reiki trainees have a higher level of hemoglobin in the blood, compared with non-Reiki people. However, there was no randomization, no blinding for the experimenter (to control for bias), and too small a control group to be meaningful. It is published in the "Journal of Holistic Nursing", which is not a peer reviewed science journal (no scientific journal would publish such a badly designed test). It has not been replicated. There is also a disconnect between this supposed phenomenon and whether Reiki actually heals anyone. So this test tells us nothing about Reiki.

Page 229 - Rheumatoid Arthritis pain treated with Reiki

This was a single blind study with six subjects. Unfortunately, six subjects are nowhere near enough to judge significance. Even the book states that the number of subjects was too small. Single blind tests are always suspect. And it is a Master's Thesis - not published in any peer reviewed journal. So this test also tells us nothing about Reiki.

Page 230 - Idiopathic Pain

Firstly there were only 24 subjects - too small a group. Two people reported healing was successful and four reported some relief, but the book does not note whether they were in the Reiki or the control group (nor, incidentally, does it say what treatments the "control group" received, so we really have no clue as to the protocol of the test). Anyway, the final test result was "no significant differences between treatment and control groups". So this test also tells us nothing about Reiki. (You could say Reiki failed, but the group was actually too small to be meaningful either way.)

Page 232 - Pain Anxiety and Depression

120 patients assigned to one of four groups:
* Reiki
* Progressive muscle relaxation
* Control (ie no treatment)
* False Reiki
Results showed Reiki was "significantly superior". However, the authors listed at least five other variables that could have influenced the results, and so it is hard to form any meaningful conclusion. The study is published in a journal called "Subtle Energies", which (I'm guessing), does not have too strict a peer review policy. And no replication. So this test also tells us nothing about Reiki.

Page 284 - Reiki and Electrodermal activity

This was a distance healing project to see if skin resistance could be altered by a practitioner. Even the book calls this "seriously flawed", noting that no healing effects were noted, so I'm not really sure what it's doing in the book. This test also tells us nothing about Reiki.

Page 280 - Summary of a Master's thesis

This compared TT, herbal therapies, Reiki and acupuncture. States that Reiki was the least helpful, whatever that means. It is impossible from the book to tell what tests were actually done so this test also tells us nothing about Reiki.

That was it.