Quackademic medicine versus cancer quackery: The central dogma of alternative medicine is questioned by an advocate of "integrative medicine"

Since I seem to be on a roll the last few days discussing cancer quackery, I thought I'd just go with it at least one more day. Frequently, when I get on these rolls laying down the Insolence, both Respectful and not-so-Respectful, over antivaccine quackery I start whining about how I need to change topics, but not this time around, not this topic. It takes a lot more than what I've posted lately to make me feel as though I need a change of pace. Besides, for whatever reason, the blog fodder is flying at me fast and furious, whether it be the dubious testimonial I discussed yesterday, yet another deconstruction of the moral bankruptcy that is Stanislaw Burzynski, or my take on the sheer quackery that is "naturopathic oncology." The first rule of blogging is that you don't talk about blogging. Oh, wait. That's not it. I talk about blogging all the time. The first rule of blogging is: When the world is throwing easy blogging material at you, for cryin' out loud, go for it. Yeah, that's it.

So I'm going for it.

The blog fodder this time around comes in the form of three articles that appeared in ONCOLOGY: Perspectives on Best Practices, an open-access journal about...well, oncology. All three of them are about cancer quackery. Shockingly, in the first article, by Barrie Cassileth, director of all woo integrative oncology at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and IIan R. Yarett, actually uses the word "quackery" in its title: Cancer Quackery: The Persistent Popularity of Useless, Irrational 'Alternative' Treatments. In it, Cassileth provides a rather standard discussion of bogus cancer treatments that almost could have been written by Orac, were it not for the complete and utter lack of snark, even the subtle snark that academics sneak into papers. She does, however, complain that quacks have appropriated the term "complementary" in order to "use it incorrectly." This complaint derives from how many of these cancer quacks don't actually advocate using their nostrums in addition to conventional therapy but rather in lieu of science-based medicine. Personally, I find this amusing, given that quackademics have no one to blame but themselves for this, given the specific modalities they have tried to "integrate" with science-based medicine. It rather reminds me of the "intelligent design" creationists, craving respectability and crowing to high heaven that they aren't pseudoscientists but real "scientists," taking umbrage at being lumped together with fundamentalist creationists who believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago with all animals in their current forms. No, Cassileth seems to be saying, we don't associate with that riff-raff. They're fundamentalist loons. We're scientists!

I'll give her some credit for this article, though, and why not? Cassileth lists a fairly standard bunch of quack treatments, the majority of which have been covered on this blog at one time or another, and rips into them. The litany should be familiar: laetrile, shark cartilage, Entelev/Cantron (which I recently discussed, with the comment thread afterward having swollen as of this writing to nearly 1,100 entries), various oxygen therapies (such as hyperbaric oxygen or various means of administering hydrogen peroxide, "energy therapies," which Cassileth admits have no evidence to support them. Given that admission, one wonders why reiki, which is a form of "energy therapy," is offered at MSKCC. Come to think of it, acupuncture is also a form of "energy healing" as well, given its claim to be able to manipulate the flow of qi through the body to healing intent, and MSKCC offers acupuncture as well. That doesn't stop Cassileth from making the dubious claim that acupuncture and other woo have "been shown to be safe and effective as adjunctive treatments for managing pain, nausea, stress, and many other symptoms, and for supporting patient well-being in general," whatever "supporting patient well-being in general" means.

There are other weaknesses. For instance, no mention is made of Gerson therapy, and it is that particular form of quackery, as well as its many variants (such as the Gonzalez protocol and other treatments that loosely fall under the rubric of "metabolic therapies" and often include such lovely interventions as coffee enemas), that is arguably the cancer quackery most heavily promoted right now; that is, unless high dose vitamin C, which never seems to stay dead no matter how many scientific stakes are driven into its heart, isn't the most common quackery. One could only wish that, like the vampires on True Blood, such quackeries would explode into a disgusting blob of blood and tissue when the stake of science is driven through their hearts, but sadly this never seems to happen. Her omissions aside, I can't be too hard on Cassileth. Her article is actually pretty good, by and large, if you can ignore that she is in charge of bringing quackademic medicine into one of the greatest cancer centers in the world. She also makes this statement:

Many alternative approaches to healing are premised on the concept of the mind/body connection, and specifically on the theory that patients can harness the power of their mind to heal their physical ills.[4] Many mind/body techniques, such as meditation and biofeedback, have been shown to reduce stress and promote relaxation, and are effectively and appropriately used as complementary therapies today. However, some proponents of these techniques overpromise, suggesting that emotional stress or other emotional issues can cause diseases like cancer and that correction of these deficiencies through mind-body therapies can effectively treat major illnesses. Such claims are unsupported.

Many of these ideas were promoted by a former Yale surgeon, a popular author who advocated special cancer patient support groups in his books. The importance of a positive attitude was stressed, as was the idea that disease could spring from unmet emotional needs. This belief anguished many cancer patients, who assumed responsibility for getting cancer because of an imperfect emotional status. Among alternative modalities, the mind/body approach has been especially persistent over time, possibly in part because it resonates with the American notion of rugged individualism.[4]

Of course, none of this stops MSKCC from offering "mind-body" services. I guess it's OK to Cassileth because she doesn't promise that such woo will cure the cancer. OK, I'll stop with the snark (at least the snark directed at Cassileth). She's basically correct that there is no evidence that these therapies can impact the natural history of cancer and produce a survival benefit, and I give her props for carpet-bombing the quackery that is the German New Medicine.

Cassileth's article was accompanied by not one, but two, additional commentaries, both of which didn't take issue with the criticism of specific cancer quackeries, such as Entelev, but rather with her statement above about mind-body "healing." Neither of the commentators were happy that Cassileth had questioned the central dogma of alternative medicine, which is what I've been discussing the last couple of days. That central dogma is that if you wish for it hard enough your mind can heal you of anything. The corollary of this central dogma is that if you are ill it is your fault for not having the right "intent," attitude, and thoughts and therefore not doing the right things and/or not believing hard enough. It's not for nothing that I have likened alternative medicine to religion or the New Age woo that is The Secret, and these authors simply reinforce that view. First up is radiation oncologist and practitioner of "integrative oncology" Brian D. Lawenda, MD, who pens Quackery, Placebos, and Other Thoughts: An Integrative Oncologist’s Perspective.

In the first part of his article, Lawenda protests loudly, arguing that "not all therapies categorized as 'alternative,' 'nonconventional,' or 'unconventional' are completely ineffective." I suppose it depends on what you mean by "completely ineffective." Personally, when I say "completely ineffective," I mean "indistinguishable from placebo." That's the usual definition of "ineffective" in medical circles, and it is a description that applies to the vast majority of "integrative oncology," including acupuncture, therapeutic touch, reiki, and the like. In the case of acupuncture, for instance, it doesn't matter where you stick the needles or even if you stick the needles in at all (a toothpick twirled against the skin will do as well or better). In other words, in the case of acupuncture, the effects are entirely nonspecific. Indeed, Lawenda's claim that these therapies are being used in an "evidence-based" manner is almost as overblown as the claims that quacks make; real "evidence-based" use of the vast majority of these modalities would be not to use them at all. They don't work. That doesn't stop Lawenda from advocating placebo medicine. But first he has to remonstrate with Cassileth over her characterization of "mind-body" medicine:

One area of controversy that comes up often in integrative oncology circles is whether or not there is an association between chronic stress and cancer-specific outcomes. Dr. Cassileth asserts that the association between chronic stress and cancer development, progression, and recurrence has not been definitively established. Those who support this view might categorize as quackery the claim that stress reduction (eg, through lifestyle changes, mind-body therapies, etc) can improve cancer-specific outcomes.

Those who believe that chronic stress and cancer are linked cite data that support this claim. In particular, there are clinical studies[7] that report improvements in cancer-specific outcomes in patients who are taught stress management techniques. Furthermore, researchers continue to identify chronic stress as a causative factor in numerous pathophysiologic processes that are known to be associated with the development, progression, and recurrence of various cancers (eg, stimulation of systemic inflammation and oxidation, impairment of immune function, increases in insulin resistance and weight gain, etc).[8]

Lawenda overstates his case massively. The evidence that improving "attitude" improves cancer-specific survival is of shockingly low quality. There's just no "there" there. As I've said before, that's not to say that psychotherapy and other modalities designed to improve a patient's mood and mental state might not be useful. Certainly, they can improve quality of life, used in the proper situation. However, there just isn't any evidence that is even mildly convincing that such modalities can improve a patient's chances of surviving his cancer.

I also know that Lawenda is laying down pure, grade-A woo when I see him retreating into the favorite alt-med trope, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and claiming that "many alternative therapies, once believed by conventional medical practitioners to be merely placebos, have now been shown to have proven therapeutic value (eg, acupuncture, numerous botanical extracts, meditation)." Well, no. Acupuncture has not been convincingly shown to have therapeutic value for any condition, and it's no surprise that botanical extracts might be effective for some things; they are, after all, drugs. Adulterated drugs with lots of impurities whose potency can vary widely from lot to lot, but drugs nonetheless. He even attacks antidepressants based on more recent evidence suggesting that they might not be as effective as previously thought and in some cases might not be better than placebo, an idea ably countered by James Coyne.

Lawenda's rebuke, however, is nothing compared to what comes next. Remember Cassileth's dismissal of the findings of a "Yale surgeon" who claimed that support groups improved cancer survival? Here comes that Yale surgeon! Yes, indeed. It's Bernie Siegel, and he's pissed, proclaiming that The Key to Reducing Quackery Lies in Healing Patients and Treating Their Experience. Of course, his carefully cultivated image of being the ultimate nice guy and caring physician can't be endangered; I only infer his annoyance from the tone of his response. I also infer a lot from the fact that, unlike Lawenda and Cassileth, who at least include some references taken from the peer-reviewed scientific literature to support their points, Siegel cites exactly one reference, and one reference only, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward. Lawenda cites mostly poor quality studies, but at least he tries by citing studies. Siegel, on the other hand, seems to think he is the Great and Powerful Oz (Dr. Oz or the Wizard of Oz, take your pick) and that you should just take his pronouncements on faith because he is so awesome. I will admit that Siegel probably has a point when he says that better communication could potentially reduce the incidence of cancer patients turning to quackery, but even making this reasonable point he overstates his case when he says that quackery would "diminish greatly" if doctors would just learn to communicate better. There's a lot more to the appeal of quackery than having a doctor who can't communicate, much of which wouldn't even come close to disappearing, even if every doctor turned into a Bernie Siegel clone with respect to showing incredible empathy to patients.

Siegel then dives right in, relying on the sheer force of that awesome empathy of his to rip Cassileth a new one for daring to criticize his work:

Our emotions govern our internal chemistry, and hope is therapeutic. We know that laughter enhances survival time in cancer patients, while loneliness has a negative effect. When a Yale graduate student did a study on our support group members and it showed increased survival time for the group’s members, his professor told him that couldn’t be true and made him change the control group so that everything came out equal. Doctors don’t study survival and the power of the mind.

Which is, of course, utter nonsense, leavened with more than a little conspiracy mongering. Doctors have been studying the "power of the mind" and survival for a very long time. What Siegel doesn't like is that they haven't found that the mind is nearly as powerful as Siegel would like to believe. It's a topic I've been writing about since the very beginning. There's a reason for the central dogma of alternative medicine; it's very appealing to believe that sheer force of will or thinking happy thoughts can heal us of serious diseases. Talk about the ultimate form of "empowerment"!

Siegel then goes completely off the deep end:

The mind and energy will be therapies of the future. I know of patients who were not irradiated because the therapy machine was being repaired and no radioactive material was reinserted. The radiation therapist told me about it because he was feeling terrible. I told him he didn’t know what he was saying to me. “You’d have to be an idiot to not know you weren’t treating people for a month—so obviously they had side effects and shrinking tumors, which was why you assumed they were being treated.” He said, “Oh my God, you’re right.” I couldn’t get him to write an article about it. I also have patients who have no side effects because they get out of the way and let the radiation go to their tumor.

Yes, an unsubstantiated anecdote about an apparently incompetent radiation oncology tech who didn't notice that his radiation machine wasn't actually delivering radiation trumps evidence, apparently. (One wonders how the machine still functioned if its source wasn't re-inserted. Most such machines have a warning light or won't turn on if the source isn't properly in place.) Siegel's article is so full of alt-med tropes and a heaping' helpin' of what can best be described as pure woo. Besides recommending his own books (one of which I actually have on my shelf but have not gotten around to reading), Siegel recommends The Energy Cure: Unraveling the Mystery of Hands-On Healing by William Bengston, The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter & Miracles by Bruce Lipton, and The Psychobiology of Gene Expression by Ernest Rossi. Lipton, as you recall, is a cell biologist who abandoned “conventional” biology after having some sort of mystical revelation about cells that led him to conclude that God must exist and that “holistic” therapies work. I hadn't heard of the other two, but Siegel describes Bengston thusly:

Bengston cured mice of cancer in a controlled study with the energy conducted through his hands. I was healed of an injury in the same way by healer Olga Worral many years ago. We definitely need to test potential therapies to verify whether or not they are useful, but we also have to keep an open mind to what might be possible, and we must understand that we are treating a patient’s experience and not just a disease.

It turns out that Bengston preaches exactly the sort of quackery that Cassileth quite correctly castigated, namely that energy healing can cure cancer! From his own website:

Can energy healing really cure cancer? Is it possible for you to heal someone's terminal illness with your bare hands? Is the Western medical community ready for a fundamental change in its approach to treatment?...Dr. William Bengston invites you to decide by taking a journey with him into the mystery and power of hands-on healing. Drawing on his 30 years of rigorous research, unbelievable results, and mind-bending questions, Bengston challenges us to totally rethink what we believe about our ability to heal.

As there so frequently is after a book advertisement, there are blurbs with people saying how great Bengston's book is. Guess who gave Bengston a plug. Yes, Bernie Siegel. I must say, I had no idea that Siegel was so deep into woo. Elsewhere in his article he says he had chronic Lyme disease and was helped by homeopathic remedies. He even says that he "knows they work" because of his "experience of having the symptoms of the disease alleviated." It doesn't get much quackier than energy healing and homeopathy. They are the two most ridiculous quackeries out there, and Bernie Siegel is promoting them both.

Siegel concludes:

I was a pediatric surgeon and a general surgeon, and I know how powerful my words were to the children—and adults—who believed in me. I had no problem deceiving children into health by labeling vitamin pills as medications to prevent nausea and hair loss, or telling them the alcohol (Drug information on alcohol) sponge would numb their skin (and of course, sharing this with their parents, who helped empower their child’s belief). The mind and attitude are powerful healing forces. The mind and body do communicate, so I work with patients’ dreams and drawings and have diagnosed illnesses from them. I have yet to meet a physician who was told in medical school that Carl Jung correctly diagnosed a brain tumor by interpreting a patient’s dream.

This may not seem related to the subject of quackery, but it is—because it is about how to train doctors so that they know how to provide hope and potential to patients and how to use the mind and placebo effects. Doctors’ “wordswordswords” can become “swordswordswords” and kill or cure patients. I know a man who had cancer and needed cataract surgery so he could enjoy the life that remained to him with restored vision. His health plan denied the surgery because they expected him to die within 6 months and didn’t want to spend the money. He died in a week. The Lockerbie Bomber was released by the Scottish authorities because he was dying of cancer. He went back home to the Middle East and survived for over 3 years— and that is no coincidence.

Note the mind-body dualism ("the mind and body do communicate"). Of course they do, because the mind is the brain, and the brain is in constant communication with the body! That doesn't mean you can think yourself healthy. Remember how I discussed some time ago the way that this increasing emphasis on placebo medicine among promoters of "integrative medicine." As I've said so many times before, the reason IM fans have taken this position is because they're finally being forced to accept that high quality evidence shows that most alt-med nostrums rebranded as "CAM" or "integrative medicine" produce nonspecific effects no better than placebo. So these nonspecific effects get relabeled as the "powerful placebo," as proponents of "integrating" quackery into real medicine pivot on the proverbial dime and say that's how their favored therapies worked all along, by firing up placebo effects! It's pure paternalism, as well, as I have discussed multiple times.

Siegel claims he's "unleashing the healing power" in each of us, but what he is really doing is advocating a return to the paternalistic, unquestioned, shaman-healer so common in so many societies in pre-scientific times. In ancient Egypt, physicians were also priests; both functions were one, which made sense given how little effective medicine there was. Praying to the gods for patients to get better was in most cases as good as anything those ancient physicians could do. Also notice how, to Siegel, apparently the end justifies the means. Siegel can deceive patients about vitamins and alcohol sponges because he thinks it's all for a greater good, really believing that he is so all-powerful a shaman-healer that his words alone can have a huge effect in curing or killing patients. That's how he appears to be justifying the deception. He needs to get a clue (and some humility) and realize that, although placebo effects are important confounders in clinical trials, it's a huge stretch to ascribe such awesome power to their effects. What Siegel is describing is magic, not science; religion, not medicine. Thinking does not make it so.

Unfortunately, Cassileth doesn't seem to realize that, at their core, the "unconventional" aspects of the "integrative medicine" that she is promoting are little or no different than what Siegel promotes. In essence, "integrative medicine" is all about "integrating" magical thinking into scientific medicine. Acupuncture, "mind-body" interventions, reiki, and all the various quackademic medicine that has infiltrated medical academia relies on the same ideas, the same magical thinking, that we see on display from Bernie Siegel. Cassileth might think herself so much more rational and "evidence-based" by attacking the most egregrious cancer quackery, but she's only fooling herself.

Categories

More like this

@AdamG

The expected outcome of a woo/magical waving experiment involving mice with cancerous tumors is that all the critters die.

If this is true, then the fact that the mice lived means the experiment was not conducted properly. That’s a proper application of parsimony.

Or, gasp, it means that energy healing actually works, although not in the expected way.

Marg, if I presented you with a clinical trial of energy healing in actual humans with cancer, and the main conclusion of the study was that not a single individual died (neither in the experimental nor the control group) would you conclude that energy healing cured their cancer? Why or why not?

Your example is not analogous to Bengston's experiment because the mice did not just survive, they "remitted to full life-span cure". My reaction would also depend on what kind of cancer you were treating. For instance, if you took a group of stage-4 pancreatic cancer patients and they all got cured (which is what happened to Bengston's mice), I would have to conclude that something extraordinary happened. Your controls in that case would be all the other stage-4 pancreatic cancer patients out there who died, which is what stage-4 pancreatic cancer patients normally do. It would be impossible for you to do a statistical analysis, and everyone would say your experiment is useless. But if they said "nothing happened" they would be dead wrong, because you would have a bunch of stage-4 pancreatic cancer patients who had been cured.

And if you repeated the experiment again with the same results, I would be even more impressed, but a lot of people out there would be accusing you of using a bad experimental design, because there was no difference between your treated group and your control group, and besides, they were all supposed to die, so they clearly did not have cancer in the first place.

@Flip
I love your BLUE elephant and of course all the engineers and ISS scientists deserve their due as much as Neil Armstrong, even if their names will not be known.

I always hated going to the symphony/theater/opera just because it was the right "upper middle class" thing to do or because something famous was playing. If there is something on that you want to see or hear, that's a different story. But I also tend to avoid things that attract multitudes.

At any rate, I lost you on my logical fallacy. Please explain.

The source for the experiments taking place in the 70s is Bengston’s book The Energy Cure and the talk I attended.

Whereof I cannot speak, thereof I must remain silent.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg, there are 2 competing hypotheses for why the mice survived. Either

A) The experiment was not conducted properly or
B) "it means that energy healing actually works, although not in the expected way"

One of these is true, the other false. What method can we use to determine which is true and which is false?

@AdamG
Do it again.

Marg, if you repeat a flawed experiment, you'll still get flawed results.

How do we determine if the experimental design itself is flawed?

@Marg

Here is Bengston’s story paraphrased.

Read: here is more unfounded anecdotal stuff that I pulled from a state of nirvana. Please ignore the lack of verifiable data as I have none.

I cannot say whether it is true or not.

Then why post it on a SCIENCE blog?

That’s a proper application of parsimony. Or, gasp, it means that energy healing actually works, although not in the expected way.

Yeah, maybe your reading comprehension sucks. AdamG said *parsimony*. It's not A (no healing) or B (healing): it's A, B, or C. C is where the study design is flawed so you can't tell anything either way and parsimony suggests you go with A until better evidence shows B.

At any rate, I lost you on my logical fallacy. Please explain.

Oy...

Example:
Angelina Jolie comes up to you. She points to the sky and says the sky is red. You look up: it's quite clearly blue. You tell her you disagree, you point to photos and spectroscopy and examples of blue paint for comparison. She doesn't agree with you. She continues to say "it's red". You ask her to provide data that says the sky is red. She points to one small experiment which doesn't use the right equipment to measure the colour of the sky. You look at the data she provides, but it doesn't impress you. You show it to other scientists and they find many faults with it. Plus there's 10 times more data going in the other direction and says the sky is blue.

Under your line of thinking Angelina Jolie is right simply because she's famous. Or, because "truth is perception" so it's red for her and blue for you.

Someone is either right or wrong. Nobel prize winners can be wrong. Young girls can publish peer-reviewed papers in well-known journals. The only thing that matters is whether or not the data or hypothesis stands up to scrutiny. Argument from authority is quite clearly a fallacy. And if you still don't get it, you're beyond help.

Or rather, if you still don't get it, you're refusing to budge because you'd prefer your postmodern worldview. At which point, I will repeat myself ad naseum:

Post some data. Other than your fanboi obsession with a single experiment.

How were the original four experiments badly designed?
I have no issue with the design of the original four experiments. Only with the *interpretation* -- specifically, with the decision to ignore the 'control' nature of the control groups and treat them as additional Treatment groups (leaving no controls).
After that decision, it was clearly essential to have a *true* control group of mice who had been injected but offered no treatment at all -- to check their life expectancy, for the current genetic make-up of the of mice, not the make-up they had X many years ago. None of this farrago of declaring groups of mice to be controls only to retrospectively relabel them as treatment groups (for increasingly complicated reasons of quantum entanglement) when they fail to die on schedule.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Sep 2012 #permalink

The source for the experiments taking place in the 70s is Bengston’s book

No. He may have first met his mentor in the 1970s. However, the book reviews I have perused -- all on Bengston's side -- agree that he was a professor at the time at the time of the experiments, dating them to after he received his Ph.D in 1980. For instance:

While all this was going on, Bengston moved on with his own life. He entered graduate school and earned his master's and doctoral degrees in sociology. He maintained his friendship with Mayrick, however, and even began trying his own hand at the healing process. Working alongside Mayrick he started to formalize the process, continually asking Mayrick how he did it—what was going on in his mind during the healing process, etc. [...] It was during this time that Bengston met David Krinsley, a geology professor from Queen’s College of the City University of New York City.

And now, in honour of Bengston, I shall turn off this computer and play Alex Harvey's "Faith Healer".

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 04 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Flip
Where do you get "one little experiment"? There were 10. Five of them were written up.

@herr doktor bimmler
Do we understand that Bengston only LOOKED at the control mice?

Do we understand that the secondary controls were not instituted retroactively but as part of an experiment?

You are relying on reviews of the book to establish chronology?

I'll have to peruse my copy of the book for the details, but I am pretty sure that he did not do the experiments as a PhD. I'll have to get back to you on that.

@Flip
Correction, 12, at least according to Bengston's latest comments.

@herr doktor bimmler
According to the book, Bengston did the first four experiments prior to getting his PhD. He says that after he failed to excite academic interest in his experiments, he chose to get back to his own field, and did not pick up the experimental trail again for two decades. The following chapter begins with the birth of his son and the attainment of his PhD in 1980.

Well, I have time because my car is being serviced.

To boil down the problem:
we want to see whether a treatment is associated with changes in the experimental group ( E) when compared to the control group ( C) that are significantly more than would be expected by chance alone..In short, diiferences between groups (BG) should be significantly more than differences within groups ( WG).( Pardon me but I can't really do equations or draw on this machine)

To start, the two groups should be as equal as possible.
Thus, we have E= C. Hopefully.

The null hypothesis is that the two groups will remain equal despite treatment of E.
The alternate is that the E will change significantly AND C will not.

The results were that E=C. Which means that there is NO effect from treatment OR that something is amiss OR that B. cured all mice, some deliberately ( Es)
some inadvertantly ( Cs)

There are many ways to fix this that I won't go into. The most obvious difference is B . himself : if he is the source of the cure ( or errors) remove him. OR have him present only for the E group, if HE is the treatment.

It's much more parsimonious to believe that error is the source of the results than to suppose a new type of energy that can't be explained by the laws of physics and biology. IF
there WERE past records of events resembling this, THEN B might have a leg to stand on so he might continue-
but there aren't,
unless you count anecdotes and the fabled research of charlatans far and wide ( Institute of Applied Biology)

Basically, there are many ways to fix this research and B. didn't follow up and eliminate other possiblities before trumpetting cure by energy or random looks.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Marg

Even according to you, you *think* there's 10 experiments, maybe 12. And you're taking Bengston's word for it instead of posting the citations. At any rate, I mistyped. What I should have said was

One experimenter. Not the 'er' on the end. In other words, you need more than one scientist and more than 10 experiments. Because 1 guy and a handful of papers does not trump the thousands of other data points and papers that suggest that faith healing doesn't work.

And I continue to note that you have not posted further evidence backing up your assertions. Furthermore, I note you have not responded to my point about argument from authority.

You know what makes a conversation interesting? When people both ask *and answer* questions.

I love how Marg ignores questions she can't or won't answer and expects us not to notice. Here they are again Marg:

How do we determine if the experimental design itself is flawed?

What statistical test should Bengston have done? Which test is appropriate here and why?

@Flip @DW

Only in experiment one of the original four was Bengston the healer. For the other three he trained "skeptical volunteers" to do the healing. The experiments were run by the department heads of the biology departments where they took place. Other than train the volunteers in his healing technique, Bengston did not participate.

Bengston wrote his second paper to address the issue of the null hypothesis and said that it was a "Type 2 error". The man teaches college-level statistics and sociology for a living, so one would imagine he knows statistics. BTW I illustrated the issue in a response above, using stage-4 pancreatic cancer patients as an example.

@Flip
Every scientist who cites another scientist's experiment is using an argument from authority, as he himself has no way of knowing for certain that the experiment is valid. And it would seem many aren't:

http://candidaabrahamson.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/a-fine-mess-were-in-m…

@Flip @DW
Bengston only did the healing in the first experiment in the original series of four; for the other three he trained skeptical volunteers and did not participate himself. The experiments were run by the department heads of the biology departments where they took place.

@Flip
Every scientist who quotes another colleague's research is resorting to authority, since he himself has no way of knowing how valid that research is. Apparently establishing validity has been a bit of a problem, particularly in cancer research: http://candidaabrahamson.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/a-fine-mess-were-in-m…

@DW
Bengston addressed the problem of a false null hypothesis in his second paper, "Resonance, Placebo and Type II Errors". I think I addressed the issue in a comment above, using stage-4 pancreatic cancer patients as an example.

My last two comments disappeared into the ether, maybe because they are being moderated.

See what happens to this one.

@Flip
Your prejudice is showing. This is not faith healing. Bengston has a technique that is not faith based and fMRI experiments that show marked changes in his brain when he performs the technique.

@AdamG
I believe I answered your question with the theoretical experiments involving stage-4 pancreatic cancer patients. What you are looking at it the short-comings of the scientific method.

@AdamG
_is_ the shortcomings

Marg, I'm asking, generally, how we can determine if the design of an experiment is flawed. You initially answered "Do it again," which won't work for the reasons I described above.

Additionally, you continue to make no effort to understand which statistical analyses are needed here and why they are so important.

What you are looking at it the short-comings of the scientific method.
What, in your opinion, are the shortcomings of the scientific method?

@AdamG
That it doesn't appear to work with experiments based on consciousness.

In the two comments that disappeared I posted a link to an article about an alarming number of cancer experiments that were not replicable and resulted in a fairly significant number of scientific articles being withdrawn. Only in some of them were scientists fudging their results.

I think the problem of non-replicability is partly an issue of the experimenter's consciousness affecting the outcome. I also think this will become a growing problem and eventually the scientific method will have to be re-evaluated.

You have not yet outlined the flaws in Bengston's experimental design -- which in fact was not his design, but the design of the department head of biology where the experiment took place. You are assuming that there was a flaw because of the outcome. The design was standard: experimental group + control group. The experimental group was actively treated, the control group was not. The control group was only looked in on, and no one intentionally gave it any treatment. Do other experimenters not check in on the control group to see how they are doing?

Maybe I should ask, how would YOU like to see Bengston conduct his next experiment?

My last two comments disappeared into the ether

They've gone to live with the subtle energies? Maybe there's been some quantum tunneling in your avadhuti. Try holding your hands up to the screen and coaxing them back to the correct bardo.

@Narad
No. I put links in them and they are being moderated.

No. I put links in them and they are being moderated.

Uh-huh. Curing cancer's no problem, but the magic stops with WordPress automoderation?

@Narad
All magic stops with WordPress automoderation :)

That it doesn’t appear to work with experiments based on consciousness.

But this isn't "based on consciousness," remember? That's what the "geomagnetic probes" are for. That's what all the quantum bloviation is for.

Let me see if I have this straight. In 1971 (according to Edge Science issue 2) or perhaps later, mice that spontaneously develop mammary adenocarcinoma were injected with murine mammary carcinoma. They were then used in an experiment designed by a sociology student (instructor according to Edge Science) and the chair of the geology department to test the abilities of a healer who ran away ("circumstance had him back out at the last minute"). The sociology student/instructor stepped in to try being the healer, and instead of dying after a maximum of 27 days as expected all the mice lived for two years, control groups included. Control mice that were kept in locations other than the building the treated mice were in died as expected. The results of this experiment were published in 2000. Several other experiments were carried out at various academic institutions at various times, which all vary and/or are unspecified depending on which source you look at.

This raises quite a number of questions in my mind. Firstly, why inject mice that spontaneously develop cancer with cancer? That may be standard practice, it's not my field, but it seems a bit odd breeding mice to develop a type of cancer that you then induce artificially. Secondly, why choose a sociology student and a geology professor to test if something has an effect on cancer? It is not even remotely close to their fields. Thirdly, why exactly did the healer (who sounds to me like a classic cold-reading con artist going by Bengston's account in E.S.) run away? Fourthly, according to the literature these mice would develop spontaneous tumors by age 40 weeks and die aged less than a year, yet Bengston's mice lived for two years? Fifthly, why the long delay in publishing and the discrepancies in when the experiments were carried out, how many of them were there, and where were they carried out? Sixthly, where is the corroboration from other scientists involved? I would especially be interested in the control groups that died as expected, for which we only have Bengston's word, apparently.

Marg, I know this looks like nit-picking to you, but extraordinary claims have to be put under intense scrutiny and picked at ruthlessly. Only if they survive do they become accepted. I know you would love energy healing to be real, and believe me, so would I, as I have stated before. A whole new field of science and an entirely new and highly effective approach to treating cancer? What's not to like?

But for me to believe it I need to see much more convincing evidence than Bengston and his mice. There have been other experiments on humans with energy healing of different flavors, and the results have been equivocal at best, closely resembling what I would expect from placebo. Results using hard endpoints, such as death, are all negative as far as I can see. If you can find a well-designed, reasonably large study that found that energy healing extended the life of human cancer patients, do let me know.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Krebiozen:

I notice an interesting parallel to the un- published- but much recounted- 1970s (?) studies I refer to above:
the PRN woo-meister noted that ALL treated (i.e. prayed upon... oops.. prayed FOR) mice were cured and lived a very long time.
Similarly, subjects in his innumerable 'health support groups' ALL do really well. As do ALL of those folks he 'counsels' in his daily activities. So far, 70K or 100K ( it varies) of them.

ALL is an interesting word. Nothing probablistic about it. It would suggest something out of the ordinary- not the sort of things one encounters in daily life. If you look at more mundane treatments, e.g. meds for common conditions, I doubt that we'd run into 100% cures or improvements.

Words like that make me suspicious.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

Thirdly, why exactly did the healer (who sounds to me like a classic cold-reading con artist going by Bengston’s account in E.S.) run away?

It gets worse:

I observed, among other things, that some ailments responded very, very quickly to hands-on healing—in particular, cancer. The more aggressive the cancer, the faster it went away. But some ailments didn’t respond well at all, such as chronic benign tumors and warts. Malignant tumors, however, responded right away. This was curious. Also curious was that Bennett couldn’t help anyone with a cancerous tumor who had received conventional treatment. If chemotherapy was going on, people didn’t respond to Bennett. But if no such treatment was going on, the cancer responded very quickly. I watched a few dozen cancer cases go into spontaneous remissions—and as far as we know, not a single one of them ever returned.

If you see a real doctor, you'll break the magic. And, look, we never heard back from any of them!

I think the problem of non-replicability is partly an issue of the experimenter’s consciousness affecting the outcome.

You think that this is so, but that doesn't make it true. Before we can arrive at this conclusion, you have to rule out the more likely explanation that the experiments were not conducted properly. I've seen absolutely no evidence to rule this out.

I also think this will become a growing problem and eventually the scientific method will have to be re-evaluated.

How do you propose we 'evaluate' the scientific method?

Curious that Bengston lists his Ph.D. as sociology and criminology. So, let's see: he's working as a lifeguard, meets a psychic who didn't know he was a healer at the time, and recruits him to start treating cancer patients?

@DW
Nobody reads the articles. The first 4 experiments were the ones published in 2000. Only in the first of the four did Bengston act as healer; in others he used skeptical volunteers.

@Narad
Re: magic, I wonder what people in the 15th century would have said to what we take for granted today: the combustion engine, cell phone communication, microwave cooking, GPS navigation, to mention but a few. They would have called it MAGIC. Newtonian physics, relativity, quantum mechanics were all centuries away. No one in the 15th century would have predicted that they were going to be discovered. I wonder what it is that we cannot predict today.

@AdamG
It will be every interesting to see how the science community will deal with the problem.

@Krebiozen
I would like to see more experiments too. I understand what you say about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof.

@AdamG
_very_ interesting

@Narad
You are telescoping a few years into a very short paragraph.

It appears that Bengston & Moga also lied in the JCAM article:

As previously reported, the healing-with-intent experimental protocol required that the volunteer healers practice mental and “directed energy” techniques taught to us by an experienced healer formerly based in Great Neck, New York.

The "experienced healer," however, had no experience before Bengston "discovered" his "powers" and cultivated him. Then he runs away when scrutiny is on the table and Bengston decides that he'll play the part instead.

@ Marg:

If the healer ( B or a volunteer) was the factor then you subtract that person from being in contact with the C group.

So, all is equal ( both groups of subjects matched; everything else in the vicinity made equal, etc) EXCEPT exposure to a treatment ( i.e. the healer whoever that might be). E has it/ C doesn't. Easy to do.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

One "Barbara" recounts that Mayrick was telling a different story from Bengston's:

Ben said that this just came to him. One day he saw an image of himself with some kind of medical equipment on his head and he knew he was to heal. Ben said that this just came to him. One day he saw an image of himself with some kind of medical equipment on his head and he knew he was to heal.

I understand what you say about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof.

Obviously not, because the only evidence that you have for your 'healing' is what people you 'treat' tell you. That's the opposite of extraordinary proof.

So Marg, you think that the scientific method needs to be re-evaluated, but have absolutely no idea how it would be evaluated. It won't be 'interesting to see how the scientific community deals with the problem because there is no problem. You have this fantasy in your mind that non-replicability is due to experimenter's 'consciousness,' but it's just that--a fantasy.

Watch this:

I think the problem of non-replicability is partly an issue of invisible, undetectable elves affecting the outcome. I also think this will become a growing problem and eventually the scientific method will have to be re-evaluated.

How is that any different than what you said?

@AdamG
No, I also consider Bengston's experiments to be proof, even if the rest of you don't. And yes, you will increasingly find that there is a problem with replicability. It's already an issue.

Hang on to your hats, gentlemen (and lady). The next few decades are going to offer an interesting ride.

you will increasingly find that there is a problem with replicability

I agree with you, Marg. Where I disagree is that the root of this problem is 'experimenter's consciousness.' Where's the evidence for this? Why can't the cause be magical, undetectable elves?

according to the literature these mice would develop spontaneous tumors by age 40 weeks and die aged less than a year

That was my impression -- but continuing my education with the University of Google, I see that the spontaneous tumours to which that mouse strain was prone (at the time) were not particularly lethal. Slow-growing, non-metastatic. So their expected life-span is not clear. I can't recall whether it was Narad or Krebiozen who went looking for information, without success.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

According to the book, Bengston did the first four experiments prior to getting his PhD.

Evidently access to experimental animals was easier than I had believed, and the ethics committees were not as much of a hindrance.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Marg:

I realise that you truly believe in this BUT if you are familiar with the history of science and even more particularly, alt med, you'd know that we have often been promised results by *psi* folk, alt med or 'psychical researchers' for many years:

the 1890s were a period when we were told that there might soon be evidence for spiritual phenomenon and pre-cognition ( Wm James and Freud wrote about this); later on, Jung got involved himself ( astrology and marriage).

In the 1960s and later, culminating in the New Age of the 1990s, we were again told that proof was ' just around the corner'. New therapies would be revealed and shown to be superior to SBM.

Bengston ( and others) were 'investigating' this a long time ago. Has anything come of it? Research that takes all the confounders into account and eliminates experimenter error? This would be easy to do. Any of the *gentlemen* here, or I, could design an experiment that might test 'energy healing'. If we were so motivated.
-btw- doesn't Mr Randi have a challenge?

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

How is that any different than what you said?

There's a well-known method of contacting the elves, for one thing.

Marg @ August 31, 2:20 pm

Bengston has been having a hard time even getting mice for his experiments. The mice always heal, but the ethics review boards say that putting them in Bengston’s experiments would expose them to undue hardship.

Now we are told that he was getting mice well before he even gained his degrees.

It must be a quantum superimposition thing, where the mice are simultaneously available and not available, until you open the book and collapse the state.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

It was easier to get mice in the 70s?

So off-topic and FYI Narad

Eh, on the one hand it's a sociologist/criminologist playing at medical experiments, and on the other, it's some guy with a B.A. in industrial design playing at... well, I wouldn't exactly call it statistics. Really, they should get together. Just because warts are out, there's no reason to assume that the Healing Hand (sinister, in Bengston's case, IIRC) can't grow it some dong parts. (Thanks for the article.)

Narad: I just don't have the fortitude to post again at that one over "there". Catch you later :-)

You know, there are easier ways to test whether 'healing' is caused/ speeded up by a 'healer':
rather than having mice with a heritable condition, experimenters might provoke a minor, temporary injury to a subject ( animal/ person) and photograph its healing over time: e.g. a mild burn from UV or a chemical ( or a small incision); in one group, a healer would attempt to heal the injury; in the other, a non-healer would be used ( we also might have to consider other controls). The amount of injury/ healing over time ( photos) could be judged by a panel.

Now, this is just a simple alternative that would be more controllable and I'm sure if I spent a little time I could refine it and think of many variants. Healing doesn't need to be restricted to cancer: if you can heal cancer, why not a sunburn or a minor scrape?
Cutting to the chase: the healers have had lots of time, why haven't there been many studies and variants?

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 05 Sep 2012 #permalink

I think it has been done:

"[Bernard] Grad studied the Hungarian healer Oskar Estebany’s ability to accelerate the healing rate of
mice with one-half by one-inch wounds. Estebany held the cages of mice twice daily for 15 minutes. The treated group healed significantly more rapidly than the untreated group (Grad, B., Cadoret, R. J., & Paul, G. I. 1961. The influence of an unorthodox method of treatment on wound healing in mice. International Journal of Parapsychology, 3, 5–24.)

And how about Joie Jones's experiments with pranic healing and cells damaged by gamma radiation? It showed significant treatment effects.

A series of experiments with human wound healing using "derivatives" of energy healing modalities (not clear on what that means) proved inconclusive:

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.1996.2.493

Alas, it's behind a pay wall.

And how about Joie Jones’s experiments with pranic healing and cells damaged by gamma radiation? It showed significant treatment effects.

All treatment effects were clearly caused by invisible healing elves. These elves are actually summoned by very specific hand motions, so it's understandable that people thought that the hand motions healed through energy. Luckily the mystery has been solved. Sometimes scientific results are not reproducible, so I've re-evaulated the scientific method and determined that I'm right.

@AdamG
Joie Jones conducted 520 experiments with gamma radiation damaged cells and pranic healing (Claude Swanson, Life Force: The Scientific Basis) and found significant treatment effects. He also used controls that had predictable mortality rates, and electromagnetic shielding. No elves are mentioned.

From http://www.pranichealing.org/intlmd/Research/Jones%20PHMS%205_06.pdf (note that this is not a mainstream science publication): A new series of experiments involved three people directly: a Pranic Healer, a person that managed the cells, and a third person that observed the process. This third person telephoned a favorite charity during the treatment of the cells and made a donation to this charity using their credit card, willing that any good karma that came to them because of the donation be directed to the cells in culture and to their recovery from the effects of radiation. At this point, 100 such experiments have now been conducted.

Experiment. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Alas, it’s behind a pay wall.

I'll really never figure out why anyone publishes with Liebert. Anyway, for more on the lead author of the paywalled item, Daniel P. Wirth, this is kind of curious.

Marg, would you like to address the fact that Bengston & Mota made it out as though Mayrick was just some random well-known healer rather than someone who had directly gotten his start in the racket by virtue of Bengston?

@AdamG
The expected outcome of a woo/magical waving experiment involving mice with cancerous tumors is that all the critters die.

And until you realize that "unexpected outcome" does not inexorably lead to the conclusion "paradigm changes; o brave new world," discussion with you is fruitless.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

Anyway, for more on the lead author of the paywalled item, Daniel P. Wirth, this is kind of curious.

Narad, you are a master of the art of understatement. Wirth is a grifter, and not a very talented one at that. Fraud, embezzlement, fake doctors in healing experiments, social security fraud, identity theft; what a grubby trail he has left behind him. Still, anyone who doesn't believe his experiments is a blinkered skeptic unable to see the supernatural truth right before their eyes, I suppose. By the way, we have a very nice bridge for sale in London, if anyone's interested.

A quote from the SciCop article that bears repeating here:

It must be emphasized that, in the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

@AlisonG
Jones did 400-odd experiments demonstrating definite healing effects before introducing karma into the equation. Why do you discount those?

Richard Bartlett made an interesting comment about research: that in effect re-search means looking for what has already been found. "Experiment" in the true meaning of the word embraces what Joie Jones attempted to do. The word does not mean what YOU think it does, AlisonG.

@Narad
By the time Bengston did the experiments Mayrick was an experienced healer.

@Krebiozen
There appear to be plenty of fraudsters on your side of the fence too. Mark Spector of Cornell is one. Dr. Sheng Weng of Boston University is another. They both did cancer research and happily made up data as they went along.

This is from a link I've been trying to post unsuccessfully for two days. Google "cancer studies not replicable" and click on "A fine mess we are in" to see the full posting:

Reported the Wall Street Journal:

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …

Return Mr. Bagley, now going by C. Glenn Bagley, currently listing himself as former head of cancer research at ‘pharmaceutical giant Amgen and now senior vice-president of biotechnology company TetraLogic.,

Together with Lee M. Ellis, a cancer researcher at the University of Texas, he has published a paper in Nature sure to be unpopular with researcher, clinician, and consumer alike.

In “Raise standards for preclinical cancer research” they claim that, after much analysis and combing through studies at Amgen, that of 53 published studies described as ‘landmark,’ only 6 could be successfully replicated.

So an Amgen replication team of about 100 scientists got to work–fast–and, sure enough, they couldn’t confirm the results either. They promptly contacted the authors of the studies–and some researchers kicked in to help attack the problem. They discussed why the results didn’t replicate; some let Amgen borrow materials used in the original studies.

But some had a different approach. Some authors required that the scientists sign a confidentiality agreement that would bar them from disclosing data that contradicted the original findings.

“The world will never know” which 47 studies — many of them highly cited — are apparently wrong, Begley told journalist Sharon Begley [no relation].

Seems like he’s got something of a point there.

Amgen does not stand alone. Bayer Health Care in Germany analyzed its in-house studies–and was singularly unimpressed. In a 2011 paper that wins, in my mind, points for a clever title, “Believe it or not,” they looked at ‘exciting published data’ from their studies. Sadly, all too much of the data could not be reproduced. Soon Bayer had stopped almost 2/3 of its drug projects because experiments couldn’t replicate claims from the literature. A full 70% of those studies were cancer research.

As an additional cause of distress, some of these non-reproducible preclinical papers have taken on a life of their own and are quoted by secondary publications as if their word is law. Says Begley, these studies have “spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis”

Marg,

I've read the nature editorial on repkicability. It's controversial but well taken. It's also irrelevant to energy medicine. You cite claims of multiple runs by specific researchers but little or no successful replications by third parties, poor controls and, particularly with Bengston, no follow-up experiments where he tries to refute his critics through isolating the critiqued element.

By Niche Geek (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

It appears the only people capable of producing good results using faith/energy healing are those who already believe it works. That might be a clue to something important...

@Marg

This is not faith healing. Bengston has a technique that is not faith based and fMRI experiments that show marked changes in his brain when he performs the technique.

Faith healing. Energy healing. Tomato tomatoe. It stills works via directing thoughts/"waves" doesn't it? The other thing that makes them interchangeable: neither has been shown to work or exist.

That it doesn’t appear to work with experiments based on consciousness.

Your prejudice is showing. Maybe consciousness doesn't work at all? Ah, but no: in Marg's world the conclusion comes first and then the proof.

Maybe I should ask, how would YOU like to see Bengston conduct his next experiment?

By not doing it - and instead having other (non-believing) scientists creating experiments so that people can see whether or not there is confirmation bias going on. Or winning the million from Randi will do nicely.

I wonder what people in the 15th century would have said to what we take for granted today: the combustion engine, cell phone communication, microwave cooking, GPS navigation, to mention but a few.

They'd say: look what science gave us. I'm willing to bet actually that if explained to a scientist and shown the mechanics/theory behind it all, they'd probably think it was scientific and reality-based. Show it to an average crank and they'd think it was magic.

Galileo might not understand the physics behind it, but I'm betting he'd love Hubble telescope and not consider it magic at all.

Hang on to your hats, gentlemen (and lady). The next few decades are going to offer an interesting ride.

Well, there's an original comment. Let me guess, proof is just around the corner and you'll be laughing at all of us in X years.

By the way, still no explanation as to why you used the argument from authority?

@Denice

experimenters might provoke a minor

Surely that would be a breach of ethics?

In “Raise standards for preclinical cancer research” they claim that, after much analysis and combing through studies at Amgen, that of 53 published studies described as ‘landmark,’ only 6 could be successfully replicated.

This seems a bit familiar.

There appear to be plenty of fraudsters on your side of the fence too. Mark Spector of Cornell is one. Dr. Sheng Weng of Boston University is another. They both did cancer research and happily made up data as they went along.

So, a question: How did the scientific community treat these fraudsters? Did they continue to cite them favorably, like you just did with Wirth, offer them speaking engagements, and generally treat them as martyrs? Or do they retract their papers, fire them, and generally treat them as pariahs?

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist ...

I think I'll side with the people that punish fraud, rather than the ones who reward it.

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ flip:

It's purely speculation but I DO know someone who has been involved in research on sunburn/ product testing. A very white guy -btw-.

The problem might be if it's worth inflicting minor burns on subjects for speculative *psi* type research.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

There appear to be plenty of fraudsters on your side of the fence too.

Tu quoque? It's true, but hopefully, and having worked with more than a few on "our side of the fence" I'm pretty sure of this, they are in a small minority. In the field of paranormal research I'm not so sure. Also I'm not citing research done by a known fraudster. Also, the reproducibility problem is an interesting one that our esteemed host has discussed on several occasions, and rarely has anything to do with deliberate fraud.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

The problem might be if it’s worth inflicting minor burns on subjects for speculative *psi* type research.

Couldn't energy healers attempt to heal the hideously sunburned placebo group in sunscreen experiments?

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

Above, Marg engages in something that is achingly familiar to me: as a matter of fact, Mike Adams is doing something similar as well today ( Natural News).

Basically, alt med apologists tally miscreance from research, corporations, media or governements to illustrate that their work *in general* shouldn't be trusted AND simultaneously suggesting that alt med IS trustworthy.

There is a problem here. First of all, the reason we know about these breaches is because there is regulation and policing - in addition, the adverserial nature of scientific research invokes competition by other scientists who would like to show the error of others' ways, as well as colleagues would elaborate or expand someone else's research.

I'll take anti-vaccine advocates ( because most alt med mavens I survey also fall into that camp as well): they disavow any studies that support vaccination. If the research originates in a corporation, it is obviously tainted; if a university did the study, if was paid off; if a governmental agency or professional association advocates vaccines, their position is deemed to be compromised by connections to pharmaceutical companies; if the media reports that anti-vaccine research is sullied by poor methodology or outright fraud, invective is thrown at the entire industry.

Thus, we're not to believe professionals, universities, corporations, governments or the media.. so who's left?
And why woud THEY be trustworthy at all?

Part of their sales campaign involves frightening people about SBM and showing how 'corrupt' it is, which is then presented as a public service- a gift- then taking them by the hand and leading them to treatments have have NO data and NO acceptance by anyone. It is based on mis-placed and un-earned trust and emotional manipulation.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Krebiozen:

Actually, Gary Null claims that his 'healers' ( 1970s?) at the *Institute for Applied Biology* healed rats burned by radiation in the cancer 'research' going on there; supposedly, he also 'healed' rats by feeding them green juices and supplements. HOWEVER ( big however), although this was supposedly rejected by ALL journals, there doesn't seem to be a paper floating around anywhere.
Maybe someday it'll appear and we can read it.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Denice

Thanks. I think I'll have to put understanding medical ethics on my 'to do' list of reading.

Maybe someday it’ll appear and we can read it.

Instead of looking for Atlantis or the lost ark, someone should be out there looking for all those promised papers that the government/Big Whatever is hiding. The number of missing papers would probably amount to a mountain's worth...

By the time Bengston did the experiments Mayrick was an experienced healer.

No, he was a guy who had been riding the "healer" circuit for a while after Bengston had bought the horse, put him in the saddle, and smacked it on the rear. This strikes me as a relevant disclosure.

@ flip:

Altho' I STILL am sort of searching for the 'pearl of great price'. Freja's necklace and those gems Tolkien wrote so much about. No luck.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen @DW @Kevin Wicklund

You missed this part:

So an Amgen replication team of about 100 scientists got to work–fast–and, sure enough, they couldn’t confirm the results either. They promptly contacted the authors of the studies–and some researchers kicked in to help attack the problem. They discussed why the results didn’t replicate; some let Amgen borrow materials used in the original studies.

But some had a different approach. Some authors required that the scientists sign a confidentiality agreement that would bar them from disclosing data that contradicted the original findings.

“The world will never know” which 47 studies — many of them highly cited — are apparently wrong, Begley told journalist Sharon Begley [no relation].

Seems like he’s got something of a point there.

Amgen does not stand alone. Bayer Health Care in Germany analyzed its in-house studies–and was singularly unimpressed. In a 2011 paper that wins, in my mind, points for a clever title, “Believe it or not,” they looked at ‘exciting published data’ from their studies. Sadly, all too much of the data could not be reproduced. Soon Bayer had stopped almost 2/3 of its drug projects because experiments couldn’t replicate claims from the literature. A full 70% of those studies were cancer research.

As an additional cause of distress, some of these non-reproducible preclinical papers have taken on a life of their own and are quoted by secondary publications as if their word is law. Says Begley, these studies have “spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis”

So there are a whole bunch of invalid studies out there, which people will use and quote without any awareness that they are quoting falsehood and hogwash. I am not raising this to suggest that alternative medicine is superior, but to tell you lot to get off those mighty high horses you are sitting on.

So there are a whole bunch of invalid studies out there, which people will use and quote without any awareness that they are quoting falsehood and hogwash.

Marg, if you knew what "falsehood and hogwash" is, you would not be desperately wedded to downright crap.

I am not raising this to suggest that alternative medicine is superior, but to tell you lot to get off those mighty high horses you are sitting on.

I think everybody here knows what tu quoque means, Marg.

@Kevin Wicklund

You missed this part:

No I didn't, Warg. See the blue text in my previous post? That's a hyperlink. If you click on it, it will load another page. This page happens to be a discussion of that paper that we had back in April. Orac also linked to it.

So there are a whole bunch of invalid studies out there, which people will use and quote without any awareness that they are quoting falsehood and hogwash.

Maybe, maybe not. Follow the link to see why. Pay particular attention to the definition of non-reproducible used in the paper (hint: Bengston's research would be considered non-reproducible under that definition), as well as Orac's example (towards the end of the OP) of a whole branch of cancer research.

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Kevin
Maybe I will respond, now that I've seen this:

Begley defines “non-reproduced” as a term he assigned “on the basis of findings not being sufficiently robust to drive a drug-development programme.”

Bengston's method will not be driving any drug-development programmes anywhere, any time, ever, therefore by this definition his research is indeed not reproducible.

Marg.
'Not reproducible' is not remotely the same thing as 'non-reproduced.'
Honestly, you're not even trying anymore. Why are you here?

I don’t respond to posters who call me Warg

I'm sorry, I thought you had declared today "Replace First Letter of Name with 'W' Day"

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

@AdamG
In the context of my discussion with @Kevin it makes sense. Read his link.

AdamG, if there's any issue with the difference, it's my fault.

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 06 Sep 2012 #permalink

From vaccines to acupuncture to chiropractic it is not all as clear-cut as Orac presents it to be.

So you're down to non sequiturs?

Marg, it's at least nice for you to admit defeat.

That's what you're doing, you know, when you stop trying to provide any evidence for your own assertions and instead try to attack the messenger. You might as well be waving a white flag that says "I give up; I cannot make an adequate case for Bengston and his energy healing, and therefore I will completely switch topics." Of course, it's foul that the topic you chose to switch to is a falsehood-filled assault on Stephen Barrett, but you wouldn't be the Marg we've come to know if you didn't prioritize believing in magical rainbow unicorn farts and their healing properties over the common human decency of not lying.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Antaeus
How do you know it's falsehood-filled?

@Antaeus
It seems to me that, as @Tom Calarco suggests, Orac is following in Barrett's footsteps. Prior to our discussion of Bengston, there was Orac's original post. I posted this link as a comment on that post. At least Orac has the wisdom not to attack individuals as Barrett did.

Because I have a few minutes before I must prepare for my other activIties:

it seems to be all the rage to spread falehoods about Dr Barrett- because his critics can't answer him with data.

ANH is one of my all time faves but I'm surprised that Tim Bolen isn't being directly quoted.

From my perspective:
first of all, Dr Barrett answers all the various charges and claims succinctly @ Quackwatch- so why don't his critics link to that? I suppose they wouldn't want their followers to read what he has to say! About himself or about alt med. And about THEM!
-btw- Gary Null calls him a "quackbuster": if you google that, you'll link up to Bolen, not Barrett. It is called 'Quackwatch' ( and has other affiliated sites)

Barrett wasn't a cast out from his profession ( like Struck-off Andy), but retired in good standing. He is an older guy : he and his wife ( also a retired doctor) retired and moved to a warmer area. If you check out his CV, you'll discover that he had many important positions as a physician- included several at one time- like many physicians do.

He was not considered to be an expert on a woo-ish specialty because he is not a practitioner...

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Antaeus:

I am expected ( for a soiree) in the land of myth, magic and terminal artsy-ness alongside the river: I'll say "hello" to the unicorns for you.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

I was interested in Saint Joseph's College attitude to Dr. Bengston's work on energy healing and mice, so I wrote to the Professor and Chairman of the Biology Department there explaining that we are discussing his work here and asked what their official line is. I got the following response which I hope he doesn't mind me reproducing here, since his name and email address are already in the public domain:

Dear [my name redacted to preserve my privacy],
Those experiments were initiated well before I was a part of St. Joseph's College( >17 years ago). It was my understanding that the department started to work with him in a spirit of collegiality, but his approach did not adhere to the departmental mission and thus they ended any relationship.

The college's position is that Dr. Bengston works at St. Joseph's College as a Sociologist and this is an additional interest of his, independent of any institutional role.

Thanks,
Dr. Frank Antonawich
Professor and Chairman
Department of Biology
St. Joseph's College
155 Roe Blvd.

A nicely understated response which is somewhat easy to read more of between the lines. I thought it might be of interest to some of you here.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

How come Barrett gets a crony when I have to make do with a (lazy and good-for-nothing) henchman? I'm contacting Lord Draconis (may His slime glands ooze forever).

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Denice

Gary Null calls [Dr Barrett] a “quackbuster”

Um, quackbuster rhymes with Mythbuster, or Ghostbuster.
The lapsus may be involuntary, but is Mr Null sure it's a good idea to put his opponent in the the same category as two groups of well-known, sympathetic, successful media figures?
OK, one is fictional, but still. And the real-world one is also about revealing falsehoods.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen:

Maybe you should shoot for a myrmidon.

Marg,
A couple of years ago I had a long and heated argument about Dr. Barrett, which led me to spend a lot of time researching, checking and rechecking many of the various allegations, claims and counterclaims that have been flying back and forth for the past several years. I came to the conclusion that a great deal of the negative stuff written about Dr. Barrett is simply made up to maliciously smear him, and is spread by people who don't bother to check their facts. The source of a lot of the most venomous material is one Tim Bolen, who charmingly refers to our breast cancer surgeon host here as "the nipple-ripper". I would advise treating anything you read about Dr. Barrett with the greatest suspicion and check whatever is claimed carefully before linking to it. You might find Dr. Barrett's account of how he got involved in Quackwatch of interest, as well as some more information about Tim Bolen. I might add that I have never yet found anything on the Quackwatch site to be factually inaccurate, which is more than I can say about Bolen's drivel, and that many of the legal "triumphs" against Dr. Barrett that are trumpeted on sites like the one you linked to are cases that have been thrown out on technicalities and libel cases that were unproven, not an unusual occurrence in the USA.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Shay,
I learn at least one thing new here every day, and the word "myrmidon" is one of them, despite my supposedly classical education, and my spellchecker smirking at my ignorance by not underlining it. Anyway, I'm sold. I will petition His Most Tentacled Sliminess for a myrmidon forthwith, and should I be appointed one his first order will be to dispose of the henchman, which hopefully he will carry out unquestioningly as advertised (unlike the henchman, who is surly as well as lazy).

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg, that's like asking how I know a rant that denies that the Apollo moon landing occurred is "falsehood-filled." Because when the truth on a subject is easily determined and someone is telling you something different, a falsehood is what it's called. Stephen Barrett is a retired psychiatrist, not an unlicensed psychiatrist, and the difference is not subtle. Nor would anyone who actually looked at the Koren case and the Rosenthal case call them "virtually identical"; to name just the most obvious difference, Koren was the author of his own defamatory claims about Barrett (including the claim that Barrett was in fact de-licensed, which anyone can easily check for themselves and find is a false claim) while Rosenthal was instead parroting defamatory claims about Barrett that she'd read from others. Rather like you, Marg.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 08 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Antaeus

Having quite literally just finished reading the deposition with Bolen/Barrett, it's quite clear that Bolen was just parroting stuff too. He says he got most of his info from "credible sources" - whether or not he was obfuscating because he was lying or not is another matter, but based on the deposition I'm going to go with what he says... that he simply repeated and re-posted what other people had sent him without bothering to check his facts beforehand.

I doubt Koren actually writes stuff. It sounded very much like he just merges a whole bunch of PR and gossip into a newsletter.

I wrote:

a great deal of the negative stuff written about Dr. Barrett is simply made up to maliciously smear him

I should have added that the rest appears to be distorted or misinterpreted in whatever way suits the author at the time. For example, at times Dr. Barrett is portrayed as a Big Pharma henchman (or perhaps myrmidon), constantly showered with huge checks to persecute poor, brave, maverick, alternative practitioners. At other times he is portrayed as a penniless recluse, running Quackwatch from his basement. Bolen's website really is a goldmine of unintentionally hilarious material. For example:

The so-called "skeptics" are a misinformation campaign run by angry male homosexuals masquerading as atheists whose management has a significant interest in pedophilia, its promotion and protection.

Who knew?

flip,

I doubt Koren actually writes stuff. It sounded very much like he just merges a whole bunch of PR and gossip into a newsletter.

That seems to be one way they avoid successful libel actions; correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that if you repeat malicious BS believing it to be true, it isn't libel in the US, it's 1st Amendment freedom of speech.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Or even, "1st Amendment protected freedom of speech".

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Oh I give up. You know what I mean.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen

The so-called “skeptics” are a misinformation campaign run by angry male homosexuals masquerading as atheists whose management has a significant interest in pedophilia, its promotion and protection.

I'm very glad that the whole feminism/skeptics debate isn't at RI: this would cause a rather large outcry from certain people.

As for the repetition of libel, from my limited reading of Barrett's cases, it would seem that may be the case. I don't know US law, let alone libel law so I'm just going by what he reported on his site in terms of win/loss of law suits.

Personally I don't know why suing people for criticising you is a good idea: especially when most of the time us skeptics are complaining about SLAPP suits and chilling effects. I think it cuts both ways and though I have sympathy for Quackwatch and others, it does make it harder for that person's viewpoint (or facts) to be heard by fence-sitters.

I doubt Koren actually writes stuff. It sounded very much like he just merges a whole bunch of PR and gossip into a newsletter.

That seems to be one way they avoid successful libel actions; correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that if you repeat malicious BS believing it to be true, it isn’t libel in the US, it’s 1st Amendment freedom of speech.

That's one of the frustrating things. IANAL and I don't pretend to understand the Rosenthal case fully, but it was established in court that what Rosenthal was saying about Barrett was damaging falsehood, and that despite Barrett making Rosenthal well aware that the things she was saying were falsehoods, she continued to say them. To me, that seems like it should fulfill the requirement of "malicious disregard for the truth." Yet the judge decided somehow that Rosenthal's claims being passed on via the Internet was a factor somehow and meant that she could get away with her defamation.

In any case, this really has no more to do with the original post subject than sociologist Bengston's "energy healing," so Marg's claim that she's returning to the subject, rather than changing the subject because she can't defend her claims, is shown to be nonsense.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

A few things:

Helianthus: I believe that Bolen originated the term "quackbusters", not the other idiot. I think that the latter uses it to mis-direct his followers AWAY from Barrett's site ( if you google his name, 'Quackwatch' is amongst the top entries). He has spent lots of airtime talking up his own 'education' and 'expertise' to counter Barrett and Wiki ( he can't sue B- time limits?- and lost a $100 million USD suit against wiki/ also $13 million USD against Lee Phillips for his expose- see Quackwatch). The reason he named his other project 'PRN' is probably also mis-direction away from bad press AND to capitalise on actually 'progressive' movements in politics and social activism- which he apes when he isn't shrieking libertarian mottos and calling his country a "police state". 'PRN' is also the name of a legitimate news service. Woos like to copy names of real agencies ( see 'Whistleblowers') as well as naming sites to sound official and authoritative ( NVIC).

@ Shay:

I like the term "minion' myself: it conjures up images of someone slaving away over a hot keyboard dressed in pale lavender Christian Dior undergarments, drinking champagne and eating bons bons... not that I eat bon bons.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Getting back to energy healing:

Because I survey mis-information disseminators, I can report that energy medicine/ psychology is being championed and applauded as a viable alternative to SBM.
These ideas infiltrate bad science making it even worse.

At random, I just looked over a few sites and found this:
@ PRN, yesterday's 'Energy Stew' show featured Jon Whale ( from Devon) speaking about the Assemblage Point. Jon has a website, Whale Medical Inc, where he hawks his books and sells electronic gem therapy, in which the lamps are filled with gemstones. Jon was "chosen by spirit".
(The lamps sound like he stole ideas from Ayurvedism's beliefs about metals and gems as healing)

If you read sites like Age of Autism or TMR, you'll find that parents often believe that their autistic child has 'energy issues' and they might start talking about mitochondria and remediation through supplements.

Other woo-meisters characterise psychological phenomena as being energy based and ultimately fixable through attunement and re-allignment. Laying on of hands is also mentioned for physical and mental illnesses.

Energy is a useful concept for them to toss around because it is insubstantial and perhaps they think of it as being halfway to Spirit , while SBM deals in crass materialim. The energy of which they speak is not what you studied in science classes but something mystical, akin to Qi, Mana, Prana, Libido ( in the Freudian sense), spirit or soul. This slippery use of language allows them to slide right into religion: Mike Adams is up front about it and calls his new site "Divinity Now".

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

flip,

Personally I don’t know why suing people for criticising you is a good idea:

Personally I agree, I think simply calmly and politely providing the facts and rising above the sort of grubbiness that oozes from the likes of Bolen is the best strategy. I suspect it also annoys them intensely as their lies are designed to provoke a response.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Denice Walter

Why is it my mental image of you bears a striking resemblance to one of those old Mont Blanc pen advertisements?

Can't they put a "review" function on this dam' thing?

Wow. You guys have been busy.

@Krebiozen
Re: your letter from the bioology chair at St. Joseph's College, the comment that Bengston's approach did not adhere to the departmental mission and thus they ended any relationship speaks volumes. To me it says "energy healing is not part of the department's mandate". But I am sure you'll have a different take on it. I think it's very telling that not a single person personally involved with Bengston's experiments has so far stood up to say that there was something wrong with them. You would think since the man is out there talking about his experiments, someone would.

I think it’s very telling that not a single person personally involved with Bengston’s experiments has so far stood up to say that there was something wrong with them.

So do I, but I doubt it's for the reason that you do.

I think it’s very telling that not a single person personally involved with Bengston’s experiments has so far stood up to say that there was something wrong with them. You would think since the man is out there talking about his experiments, someone would.

It's easily explained; just like you, they are operating on massive confirmation bias and no matter what they've seen and how blatantly wrong it is, they close their eyes to it and claim that the experiments were tremendously meaningful and positive. You only think it's "very telling" because as meager as it is, "no one has actually yet confessed to willful misconduct" is actually one of the few things that can be put in the plus column for Bengston's "experiments"; you can't spot how much it's damning with faint praise because praise is all you're listening to and faint praise is the only kind Bengston gets.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

I'd interpret the chair's response as a polite way of saying that energy healing is not part of biology. Period.

People who were involved with B's experiments already have time and effort invested - as well as their ( I presume) good names: do you really think that they will now publicly disparage what they had formerly supported? Perhaps they don't want to draw attention to themselves and their association with the project.. maybe they are now quietly moving on.

To begin with, I truly wonder about ANY biologist- even in the 1970s or 1980s- not questioning the entire set-up and premise of this research: it is rather far-fetched if you study natural science. Would most scientists be proud of being involved with this?

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

I'm having trouble locating a copy of the mission statement of St. Joseph's Biology Dept. but I somehow doubt it mentions energy healing. That Bengston’s approach did not adhere to the departmental mission and thus they ended any relationship seems to me to be a polite way of saying that Bengston's methodology was suspect or something else was dodgy. Maybe it was something to do with inadequate randomization, a complete lack of blinding, breaking experimental protocols in every single experiment or something similar.

If Bengston's results could be replicated under strictly controlled conditions that would be potentially Nobel prize-winning. I don't think conventional science is as closed-minded as you claim - look at Benveniste, Pons and Fleischmann, Gauquelin and several others whose unconventional research has been published in peer-reviewed journals (though admittedly they mostly haven't fared too well since).

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Krebiozen:

Now are we reading each other's minds or is there a more parsimonious interpretation of our similar comments?
Is it synchronicity or similar education?

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

A point that I have not seen mentioned is that, according to Bengston, energy healing is *easy*.

According to him, he learned it and was able to do it perfectly -- absolutely perfectly since he healed the control mice by accident -- on the first try. He then taught it to four volunteers who each were able to do it absolutely perfectly on the first try.

They had to be able to do it perfectly on the first try since otherwise there would be some unsuccessful experiments mixed in with the successful ones.

Unless ...

You don't suppose ...

There were a bunch of unsuccessful experiments that he neglected to report?

No, can't be. Mice are hard to come by. Except when they aren't, of course.

So we can conclude that energy healing is really easy and randomly chosen skeptics can learn to do it perfectly -- can learn to do it so well that they heal cancer just by knowing about the patients.

I wonder why we have cancer researchers like Orac when energy healing is so easy. Maybe it only works on mice.

Bengston now travels around, giving weekend seminars where he teaches his energy healing for a few hundred dollars a person. He claims anyone can learn it and it is indeed "easy" once you train with him.

Someone on the reiki for dogs thread claimed that Bengston is doing more good now disseminating his knowledge to the massives (so they can in turn become healers) than he could possibly do if he restricted his activities to doing all the healing himself.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

"biology"

Keep at it; maybe you'll get down to a single syllable of Mystical Power.

But if it's that easy, why hasn't it been properly taught for centuries? Millennia, even? Why do practices like modern medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, German New Medicine, and all the rest even *exist* if the ability to do energy healing is in all of us and its use is easily taught?

But if it’s that easy, why hasn’t it been properly taught for centuries?

Well, see, first you need a lifeguard and a cold-reading psychic.

No, not perfectly. In the second experiment (I think) 3 of the mice treated by the students died. This is in both his papers about the experiments and in his book.

Personally I think the experiments were weird enough that any biologist worth his or her salt who participated in them (particularly any grad students who were forced to) would retroactively repudiate them if they believed something was amiss. Something along the lines of "I was a grad student, I was made to do it, I saw this and this kind of irregularity, and now as a professional scientist I feel it is my duty to speak out." To date no one has done any such thing.

Personally I think the experiments were weird enough that any biologist worth his or her salt who participated in them (particularly any grad students who were forced to) would retroactively repudiate them if they believed something was amiss.

Where's the list of these people, by the way? I presume they kept proper records.

Hmph. Apparently, it's really, really easy.

He thinks having a lively conversation with a client during the healing is a fine idea. I have spent years focusing on being present in my sessions which is really just about the opposite of Bengston’s approach. Bengston thinks it is necessary to distract the attention of the healer and the client in order to keep them from interfering in the events on the unconscious level, where he believes the real healing takes place.

Who needs university, grad school, medical school, specializations, internships and years of research and experience when you can learn to heal from Bengston himself in two days for only $295 (and that even includes lunch!)

http://fellowshipsspirit.org/bengston-energy-healing-method.php

(This whole "Fellowship of the Spirit" Learning Center is another hotbed of woo worth looking at another time...)

And yes, you will also learn distance healing and how to energetically charge materials like cotton and water with healing powers.

Bengston's own Quack Miranda is quite entertaining:

http://www.bengstonresearch.com/disclaimer/

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Classic:

"Bengston had all the workshop participants charge sterile rolled cotton to use for healing. I had read years ago that cotton, silk and water can be charged with energy and given clients for healing. While everyone was walking around the room charging the cotton I asked to feel his piece of cotton and he generously handed it to me. I may have held it for 45 seconds. Five minutes after I handed it back to him I realized the very significant headache that I had had all weekend from the Colorado altitude was now completely gone. That was really interesting. Really interesting."

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Wait a second (PDF).

His healing research produced the first successful full cure of mice with transplanted mammary cancer by laying-on-of-hands techniques. His data indicate that mice once cured are cured for life, and are immune to further injections of the cancer. Further, transplanting a piece of tumor that is in the process of remitting into a fully infected mouse will cure that mouse.

Let me get this straight: The one tumor remembers the healing energy and can tell foreign tumor cells to do the opposite of what they're supposed to? This reminds me of something.

"Five minutes after I handed it back to him I realized the very significant headache that I had had all weekend from the Colorado altitude was now completely gone. That was really interesting. Really interesting."

I guess I should have noticed this before, but Bengston claims that Mayrick would suffer the symptoms of a person by virtue of handling one of their possessions, say, a watch. Now, in this case, where did the symptoms "go"? There seems to be a problem with the metaphysical plumbing system.

Alright... let's see:

invocation of the unconscious
healing energy
laying on of hands
distance healing...
transmitting healing through cells and fabrics...

I do believe that I should turn in my cards because that is a royal flush.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Wow, Hey. Hey, wow. I hadn't looked at this one for all of 12 hours and it's full of new amusement. A royal flush? Sufficient to over-run a standard residential septic, I reckon. And I like Narad's really, really easy comment/link, too. And the complete Quack Miranda.

How does an energy healer like Bengston turn on and off his powers? If he can heal by distance, what range is that distance? Why can't he simply send out his anti-cancer signal to the entire world and cure everyone at once?

And who's to say all the people he trains are going to use their super powers for good? Couldn't an evil energy healer actually give someone cancer? What's to say everyone taking his courses has good intentions?

I can see a Stephen King novel where someone takes a course like Bengston's in order to exact revenge on those who wronged him by giving them diseases and messing with their energy.

I'm only partly joking about both these points above. They do raise questions, if you buy into the whole energy healing thing.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

Oops, I left an italics tag open. I only meant to italicize one word. Serves me right for trying to get fancy.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 09 Sep 2012 #permalink

And who’s to say all the people he trains are going to use their super powers for good?

This is an interesting question. I think that "promoting the body's natural healing abilities" and so forth are pretty much out, given that the particle (or particles) that mediates the (anti-) healing force couples to and can be stored by inanimate objects. Moreover, the force seems to be parity-violating on the level of hands. It's also unclear to me whether the healing effect is wavelike in the sense of some sort of phase cancellation with bad vibrations or particle-like, with cancerons and anticancerons annihilating (which would imply an entire family, since Bengston's failure to cure warts rather than cancer would directly indicate that there's an issue with sources and sinks of wartons and antiwartons).

Oh, for the love of G-d:

Professor Bengston’s current research includes attempting to develop a cancer vaccine from the blood of
cured mice

Denice,

Now are we reading each other’s minds or is there a more parsimonious interpretation of our similar comments?

Since your comment only appeared on my screen when I hit [Submit Comment] but appeared below mine and according to the time stamp it was submitted a whole 10 minutes after mine, it's definitely something supernatural.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

Someone somewhere knows more about Bengston's experiments; perhaps some of those that Bengston mentions in his Edge Science article:

And mainstream science and medicine has not exactly been supportive. My history of research has generally followed a two-step process. Each new lab expresses disbelief at my data obtained at other labs, and the researchers there take on a “oh yeah, well you couldn’t get those results here” approach. When the mice get cured in the first experiment at any lab, it is usually taken as a gauntlet by lab personnel that they can thwart future positive results. Then, when the second experiment also produces full lifespan cures, it is often followed by head shaking and proclamations to the effect that this is the most amazing thing they have ever seen. But when I suggest further research, there is always some reason that the work cannot continue at that institution. When I suggest that it is my goal to reproduce the remissions without the healing techniques by using either the blood of cured animals or some correlate to the healing, my suggestion is usually met with intense skepticism that such a thing might be possible. I will, nonetheless, persevere.

Are there really actual scientists out there who have witnessed "the most amazing thing they have ever seen" but lack the curiosity to pursue it, despite having all the necessary resources to hand? Or is there another side to this story? I am trying to track some of these people down, but thus far I can only find co-authors and others who clearly buy into the energy healing belief system, such as Dr. Margaret M. Moga.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

Personally I think the experiments were weird enough that any biologist worth his or her salt who participated in them

We really have no reason to think this is a large group. How many mathematicians worth their salt would participate in an effort to prove that 2 + 2 = 5? How many physicists worth their salt would participate in an effort to develop a perpetual motion machine?

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg, would you accept a study that showed cancer patients who received chemotherapy had exactly identical outcomes as cancer pateints who received no treatment at all as proof that chemotherapy was effective at treating cancer?

If not, why do you consider Bengston's study as proof energy healing is effective, other than by reason of personal appeal?

If a researcher set up a trial just as Bengston did, using two groups of mice where the treatment investigated was a standard chemotherapeutic agent, and just as in Bengston's case all the mice in both the control and experimental groups survived, would you argue that giving the experimental group mice a chemotherapeutic drus somehow, some way cured the control group mice who received no drug as well?

If not, why do you embrace this explanation for the failure of Bengston's control group mice to succumb to cancer?

From Marg's link:

" pre-cognition.. backwards-in-time... teleological pulls from the future may sometimes influence present-time decisions and events.."

Ok, I'll only deal with pre-cognition.
More than 100 years ago, Freud dealt with folklore about dreams predicting the future**: he didn't have to bow to ESP because he knew how people often use information- which is then assembled without conscious knowledge- to arrive at a conclusion or prediction. The solution *incubates* during problem solving- people have studied this- trust me.

I often find myself having strong feelings about how a partcular stock/ bond/ fund will perform- not entirely based on the numbers alone- but on the entire atmosphere of what is happening in economies at that time.

Let's say I know government A intervened in bank a and goverment B took over bank b: I will therefore make assumptions about a's and b's futures that is not entirely based on data that I have now. In the case of a, its price dropped all out of proportion with its value and I made a great deal of money; in the case of b, it affected a friend's family member's pay and he left.
I predicted the future well enough to put money into a and speculate that Mr C would be very unhappy about his career.
I doubt that the future reached back and grabbed me.

I can use plain, old COGNITION to explain many events attributed to pre-cognition.

** I'll put the dream into a modern day scenario: a father dreams that his daughter- who lives far away- will get a divorce: this contradicts what he knows because she calls him and always says how happy she is how great her husband is; he forgets about the dream and learns 6 months later, that she is indeed filing for a divorce.
The man may have recieved subtle cues from his daughter that all was NOT well and dreamt THAT, not what she TOLD him. People can read things in others' voices and actions that contradict their words and may offer a glimmer of the real story.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

"What do you make of this?"

Hind-sight is 20-20? There's nothing there for me to make anything of. No description of methods or results, just a vague assertion that MMI (which isn't defined) appears more likely to effect past RNGs rather than present or future RNGs. Or something. No useful description provided, just a link to buy the book.

(It's possible that my 5-minute perusal of the site managed to overlook the information I'd need to be able to make any comment - however, it wasn't where you'd actually look for said results)

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Denise Walter

I knew you were going to say that.

@Krebiozen

Personally I agree, I think simply calmly and politely providing the facts and rising above the sort of grubbiness that oozes from the likes of Bolen is the best strategy. I suspect it also annoys them intensely as their lies are designed to provoke a response.

I understand the annoyance though and the potential loss of business because of such comments. But from what little I read of Barret's (oh, I'm never going to remember his spelling right consistently...) time with Bolen, he seems to sue a lot of people and I don't know why you'd want to go to so much effort when the other people have a perfect opportunity to scream 'martyr'. Anti-slapp suits are one thing, continuously going after the people you criticise is well, Wakefield-ish.

I’m having trouble locating a copy of the mission statement of St. Joseph’s Biology Dept. but I somehow doubt it mentions energy healing. That Bengston’s approach did not adhere to the departmental mission and thus they ended any relationship seems to me to be a polite way of saying that Bengston’s methodology was suspect or something else was dodgy.

I've been wondering... would his energy experiments be outside of what he normally does for the department? I have no idea how these things work, so what I'm wondering is if they discovered that he was doing experiments he's not paid to do (ie outside of his field) and this caused him problems with the college...?

@Marg

I think it’s very telling that not a single person personally involved with Bengston’s experiments has so far stood up to say that there was something wrong with them.

Wow, you really don't understand confirmation bias, do you?

A la Denice, today I surveyed a whole bunch of woo via writing requests. I think I facepalmed about 40 times in 20 minutes... sigh... Seems the woomeisters were out in force today.

Marg,

And what will you do if they corroborate Bengston’s story?

I'll ask why they didn't repeat the experiments using proper randomization, blinding and sticking to the experimental protocol, and eliminating all other possible explanations for the effect Bengston reports. I will also ask why they wouldn't want to investigate the most amazing thing they have ever seen and go for a Nobel prize. If these results were proved to be replicable under carefully controlled conditions I would join you in asking why we aren't finding out how this works and curing cancer patients with it right now. I wouldn't go quite as far as Tim Minchin with his compass, but I would be very surprised.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

flip,

I’ve been wondering… would his energy experiments be outside of what he normally does for the department?

Bengston is a sociologist who wouldn't normally have anything to do with the biology department. The whole thing is strange and a bit suspect. That's why I would like to hear the account of someone else involved in this.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

@JGC
Here is my answer.

You are dealing with a different animal. Or, if you like, comparing apples and oranges.

When you are testing a substance, you can easily control for delivery. You are either injecting it into the body or making the subject ingest it by means of a pill. So you test active ingredient vs saline, or active ingredient vs sugar pill. Easy. It is clear which experimental subject received what.

How do you control for delivery with energy healing? Bengston can cure mice from 2000 miles away. Qi gong healers have also shown long distance effects too, so he is not alone in this. So how can you know which mice have received the active ingredient, and which not? I suspect this is why Bengston and Moga brought in the geomagnetic probes. Something about the energy healing was making the geomagnetic probes act strange. They acted strange in the same way both in the vicinity of the mice he intended to treat & in the vicinity of the cages where the control mice were kept. So that would seem to suggest that something anomalous was happening in both places.

Until we can control for the delivery of the active ingredient with energy healing, we cannot do controlled experiments on it. If anything, Bengston showed that controlled experiments don't work with energy healing using our current experimental protocols. Someone mentioned using Faraday cages; but Faraday cages have not worked in shielding subjects from these effects.

I recall a quote from somewhere, and I don't know the context or remember the speaker/writer, but it says "something unknown is doing we don't know what". That seems to apply here. I can see how that would drive humans crazy; particularly humans with a scientific bend.

Found it:

"Something unknown is doing we don't know what."

Sir Arthur Eddington, comment on the Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics, 1927
English astronomer (1882 - 1944)

I recall a quote from somewhere, and I don’t know the context or remember the speaker/writer, but it says “something unknown is doing we don’t know what”. That seems to apply here.

Oh, spare me. "Gee, where could I have heard that?" Right.

I can see how that would drive humans crazy; particularly humans with a scientific bend.

Your Freudian slip is showing.

Dagnabit. Link should only be around the first sentence.

If anything, Bengston showed that controlled experiments don’t work with energy healing using our current experimental protocols.

This is a conclusion that you draw from Bengston's work. I, however, look at the same work and conclude that it shows that energy 'healing' is not effective. What makes your interpretation more valid than mine?

@AdamG
Valid or not, my conclusion is more interesting and could lead us somewhere. This is how science progresses. You find something curious, and follow it up. What you seem to propose is reductionist science.

Valid or not, my conclusion is more interesting and could lead us somewhere. This is how science progresses.

Marg, this is not how science progresses. When faced with an array of possible interpretations, scientists judge them based on how likely they are to be true. We don't just pick the one interpretation that we find the most interesting.

Let's say I flip a coin 1000 times and find that I get heads 70% of the time. Two interpretations of this results are:

a) the coin is not fairly weighted
b) the flipper influenced the result through energy manipulation.

Which is a more likely conclusion? Would you say that (b) is true because you find it more interesting?

@Narad
My Freudian slip has an attractive lace border.

That should have been "bent", yes?

@AdamG
Your way of looking at things is how science ossifies.

I should point out that this is one of the first things you learn as a scientist, and often one of the hardest things to accept.

When you arrive at a result that is entirely unexpected or particularly exciting, the very first thing you try to do is make it go away. You redo your analyses to see if you did everything right. You have colleagues look over the data to see if they are able to spot errors you missed. You do everything you can think of to try and make the result disappear. One of my former advisors was fond of calling this process "Death by Occam."

Results that survive this process are the ones most likely to be real, the ones most likely to stand up to scrutiny within broader scientific community. Bad science happens when researchers forgo this process, blinded by the excitement of unexpected findings. The arsenic bacteria brouhaha is the latest high-profile example of this.

This is how science progresses.

I'm still shocked that you think this is true. What led you to believe this?

Anyways, I thought you were in favor of 're-evaluating' the scientific method anyways, so why do you even care how science progresses?

@AdamG
My 2:51 comment is in response to your 2:53 one. Time warp!

If "scientists" always stuck with what was already known, we wouldn't have had Galileo, Einstein, Newton. We wouldn't be flying and we certainly wouldn't be computing.

Your way of looking at things is how science ossifies.

Laughable, given that what I described has always been how science works.

How, specifically, is your way different than mine? Does it really just boil down to 'be more willing to accept an unlikely conclusion because we want it to be true?'

You are dealing with a different animal. Or, if you like, comparing apples and oranges.

You mean, I'm comparing fruit to fruit? Where's the problem?

When you are testing a substance, you can easily control for delivery. You are either injecting it into the body or making the subject ingest it by means of a pill. So you test active ingredient vs saline, or active ingredient vs sugar pill. Easy. It is clear which experimental subject received what.

Yes--you're conducting a properly controlled experiment.

How do you control for delivery with energy healing?

If it'simpossible to control for delivery of healing energies, it's impossible to make any claims that that its efficacy has been demonstrated.

Bengston can cure mice from 2000 miles away.

How can he know, when you claim it's impossible to determine if which if any of the mice actually received any of the purported healing energies Bengston tried to deliver?

Qi gong healers have also shown long distance effects too, so he is not alone in this.

Citations needed, please: I'm particularly interested in how those Qi gong healers controlled their energy delivery.

So how can you know which mice have received the active ingredient, and which not? I suspect this is why Bengston and Moga brought in the geomagnetic probes. Something about the energy healing was making the geomagnetic probes act strange.

We don't know that the 'energy healing' caused the result, I'm afraid. In fact, since the probes reacted both near the mice Bengston was waving his hands at and near the the mice he wasn't waving his hands at, the most reasonable conclusion is that the hand waving had nothing to do with the probes' reaction.

They acted strange in the same way both in the vicinity of the mice he intended to treat & in the vicinity of the cages where the control mice were kept.

My point exactly--Bengston's handwaving does not correlate with geomagnetic probes' reactions.

So that would seem to suggest that something anomalous was happening in both places.

Exactly! Something was happening, not associated with Bengston's handwaving.

Until we can control for the delivery of the active ingredient with energy healing, we cannot do controlled experiments on it.

And until we can do controlled experiments, we cannot generate evidence it's effective. Agreed?

If anything, Bengston showed that controlled experiments don’t work with energy healing using our current experimental protocols.

Actually, if anything, Bengston has demonstrated his handwaving had nothing to do with the reaction of the geomagnetic probes.

Someone mentioned using Faraday cages; but Faraday cages have not worked in shielding subjects from these effects.

I mentioned Faraday cages. Ctations needed--what evidence suggests that they would not have worked at shielding the subjects from putative energies associated with healing?

I recall a quote from somewhere, and I don’t know the context or remember the speaker/writer, but it says “something unknown is doing we don’t know what”. That seems to apply here.

Why then have you translated "something unknown is doing we don’t know what" as "Bengston's handwaving cured both the experimental and control group mice of cancer?

If “scientists” always stuck with what was already known, we wouldn’t have had Galileo, Einstein, Newton. We wouldn’t be flying and we certainly wouldn’t be computing.

Oh, please. I'm not saying that we should stick with what is know, I'm saying that it should take a lot of evidence to convince us of something new Those three individuals had sufficient evidence that there extraordinary ideas were true.

Again, that science produces and validates extraordinary hypotheses is not evidence that all extraordinary hypotheses are true.

@JGC
Bengston was waving his hands 2000 miles away from both sets of cages.

@JGC
The strange effects only happened near the cages of the mice & only at the times when he was healing -- and yet had nothing to do with his "hand-waving"? How do you figure that?

@Marg

Perhaps I was waving my hands at the time. It wasn't Bengston; it was me.

Yes, but you weren't recording the times, and Bengston was, and on a time spectrum his hand-waving correlated with the effects.

Ah, but you have no way of knowing whether his timing just happened to coincide with mine. With no reliable means of detecting the purported energy, there is no reliable means of determining the supposed source. He may have been doing nothing more than waving his hands, and the probes' behavior may have been the result of some other occurrence. You have no way of confirming that his results are reliable.

The idea that I, rather than Bengston, was the one affecting the probes is just as sound a claim as yours.

Then again, it could've been the action of the invisible flying unicorn in my garage, but I can't be certain, since I can't see it to be sure what it was doing at the time.

How do you control for delivery with energy healing? Bengston can cure mice from 2000 miles away. Qi gong healers have also shown long distance effects too, so he is not alone in this.
:::snip:::
Until we can control for the delivery of the active ingredient with energy healing, we cannot do controlled experiments on it. If anything, Bengston showed that controlled experiments don’t work with energy healing using our current experimental protocols.

Being as Bengston's magic healing rays go everywhere, I think it would be cool if he cured every mouse everywhere of cancer. This would get every researcher scratching their heads. If Bengston did this once a day, for, say, 3 months, the whole world would pretty much have to pay attention to him.

If “scientists” always stuck with what was already known, we wouldn’t have had Galileo, Einstein, Newton. We wouldn’t be flying and we certainly wouldn’t be computing.

Defend each of these five assertions.

Bengston was waving his hands 2000 miles away from both sets of cages.

Which logically argues that his hand waving had nothing to do with the behavior of the geomagnetic probes at either cage-agreed?

The strange effects only happened near the cages of the mice & only at the times when he was healing — and yet had nothing to do with his “hand-waving”?

We don't know that it only occurred near the cages of the mice, or that it occurred only at the times he was waving his hands, do we? To determine this we would need to monitor geomagnetic probe readings on a much larger scale that Bengston attempted.

But for giggles, assuming that Bengston cound generate "healing energies" detectable 2000 miles way but could not direct it to individual mice--he couldn't send it only to the experimental group but not to the control group--he broadcast indiscriminately. The inverse square law suggests that at it's within a mile radius of Bengston the energy would have been 2 to the 2000th power greater and would decline with the square of the increase in distance from Bengston. It's a wonder that any sick mice remained anywhere in the same hemisphere...

Belief ( a psychological event) can have powerful effects in our lives: it can motivate us to work, act, influence others and achieve (or conversely to slack off and shirk responsibility) - so we believe---work or influence--- achieve. If we cut out the middleman we have something like what Marg is invoking: faith ( or belief or thought) ALONE "moving mountains" or healing cancer. No intermediate actions( or only spurious ones, like hand waving) are necessary.

I think that that belongs in the realm of religion not that of science. If there is a force, you should be able to postulate what it is and how it works; it should be measurable. If it is supernatural, how can we who exist in the natural world deal with it? Or, are only the Elect its arbitrators? If anyone can be trained to access it, haven't we just rendered a hole in the fabric of reality ?
How likely is that?

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg, why did you skip past these questions?

Let’s say I flip a coin 1000 times and find that I get heads 70% of the time. Two interpretations of this results are:

a) the coin is not fairly weighted
b) the flipper influenced the result through energy manipulation.

Which is a more likely conclusion? Would you say that (b) is true because you find it more interesting?

@Marg - why doesn't Bergstrom just use his powers to heal all cancers everywhere within everyone?

I think it's time to start using ultimatum questions in dealing with Marg.

The way this works, Marg, is we ask you a direct question, and if you make three comments on this or any other thread without giving a direct answer to the question, we treat your refusal to answer as an affirmative admission. Sometimes it's the only way to deal with a person who changes the subject when the going gets tough, as you did trying to change the subject to Stephen Barrett.

If you actually understand science, then you understand the importance of the criterion of falsifiability.

Scientists do not try to find evidence that supports their hypotheses when they conduct experiments; they are instead searching for evidence which would disprove their hypotheses. Why? Because only trying very hard to find such disconfirming evidence and not getting it actually supports a hypothesis, actually gives us reason to think it's true. If you had to trust your life to one single rope, trusting that it wouldn't break under your weight, which rope would you trust? A rope that the manufacturers had tried like hell to break, subjecting it to every sort of twisting and knotting they could think of, hauling the heaviest loads with it they could tie up, and that had survived all those tests? Or a rope that had never been tested on anything heavier than a feather? That's right; you'd choose the rope where the manufacturers had tried like hell to break it and didn't succeed.

Now suppose someone comes to you with a hypothesis where disconfirming evidence can never be found. "Our special blessed God's Will Rope," they say, "never breaks! Except in cases where God Himself has decided, 'you know, it's really best for the Divine Plan if this rope breaks.' But if God isn't 100% consciously deciding that the rope will break, then by golly, it'll hold!" What happens if that hypothesis - that the rope never breaks unless God wills it - is false, and someone puts it to the test? One of two things: the rope holds, and believers in the God's Will Rope say "see! our hypothesis is right: except when God wills it, the rope will always hold!" Or, the rope breaks, and believers say, "Obviously, the rope holds unless God Himself wills it to break! Obviously, He willed it so just now!" No matter what the evidence is, no matter how false the hypothesis is, the evidence can't show the falsity of the hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is not falsifiable. Just as you would not trust your weight to a rope which has never been tested on anything heavier than a feather, you would not stake anything important on a hypothesis which has never received real testing because it's unfalsifiable and all tests say "Yes" regardless of what the true answer is.

Now that you understand the concept of falsifiability, Marg, answer yes or no: isn't it a fact that energy healing as you claim it to exist is not falsifiable? If there's no way to tell whether some healer within a 2000 mile radius is or isn't trying to heal some subject, and if "consciousness" can interfere with that healing but again, there's no way of telling whether it is or isn't interfering - then any result you get can be explained in terms of "healing intent" working or "consciousness" interfering, even if that's a completely wrong answer.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

"Let’s say I flip a coin 1000 times and find that I get heads 70% of the time. Two interpretations of this results are:

a) the coin is not fairly weighted
b) the flipper influenced the result through energy manipulation.

Which is a more likely conclusion? Would you say that (b) is true because you find it more interesting?"

And if the coin behaves the same way for another flipper, does that confirm that the coin is biased, or is it (Oh My God!) evidence that the first flipper's powers work on the coin even when someone else is flipping the coin.

does that confirm that the coin is biased, or is it (Oh My God!) evidence that the first flipper’s powers work on the coin even when someone else is flipping the coin.

I can only think of one way to solve this conundrum: Geomagnetic probes.

Thank you all for the good laugh.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that the coin was weighted, but I would certainly try it for myself.

@Antaeus
Thank you for the illustration of falsifiability. I learned two new things today. The other was that "Lithoclastic cystotomy is attributed to Ammonius Lithotomos (stone-cutter) of Alexandria, Egypt," who lived ca 296 BC. Who knew?

@JGC @Lawrence
It's not that indiscriminate. Only mice within the scope of the experiment were affected.

The search for experiments with Faraday cages took me here:

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=8&pageid=69&pgtype…

Following Antaeus' lead:
How could we make falsifiable hypotheses about energy healing?
First, we'd have to stipulate *what* kind of energy we're dealing with and how it could be measured- rather than the amorphous *energy* B. talks about- perhaps even what might *block* it? Where does it come from?
Waves? Particles? Heat? Light? Dark matter?

In other tales of energy healing, I've heard about something that sounds like Qi;
then we're told about 'interference' by consciousness and it affecting 'geomagnetic probes': so what type of energy could do either/ both?

What type of energy can consciousness block?

Oh, I know I'm *asking* for it!

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Anteaus

And then we have this:

Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are important in science.[5] Contrary to intuition, unfalsifiable statements can be embedded in - and deductively entailed by - falsifiable theories. For example, while "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, it is a logical consequence of the falsifiable theory that "every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years".[6] Similarly, the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such unfalsifiable ideas.[7] In contrast to Positivism, which held that statements are meaningless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that empirical refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized. Criticizability, in contrast to falsifiability, and thus rationality, may be comprehensive (i.e., have no logical limits), though this claim is controversial even among proponents of Popper's philosophy and critical rationalism.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)

Popper stated that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program — a possible framework for testable scientific theories" and also called all scientific theories conjectures, even the ones that had been successfully tested.

And this:

Thomas Kuhn's influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued that scientists work in a series of paradigms, and that falsificationist methodologies would make science impossible:

No theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time; nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any given time, define many of the puzzles that characterize normal science. If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of 'improbability' or of 'degree of falsification.' In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading to regress][38]

IMHO energy healing fits comfortably within a metaphysical research program.

First, we’d have to stipulate *what* kind of energy we’re dealing with

You've just conceded the entire shebang. The core occultist concept is that energy is "stuff" that will do one's bidding rather than a property. It has nothing at all to do with the meaning of the word in physics.

IMHO energy healing fits comfortably within a metaphysical research program.

That's two without answering the question, Marg. You're down to your last chance.

@DW
The link I provided above, http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=8&pageid=69&pgtype…, posits a number of theories and lists the kinds of things people tried to measure up to 2000.

The acronym ELF gets bandied about (and is mentioned as a reason for Faraday cages not working to shield the energy).

Bengston has suggested that it may not even be energy, but information that bypasses the conscious mind. In his talks he describes an experiment he was in, in which he had his head stuck in an fMRI while technicians placed envelopes in his hand which randomly contained either nothing or hair from sick animals. He had no conscious way of knowing which envelope was which, but when he held envelopes with hair from sick animals, his brain, quote unquote, lit up like a Christmas tree. So he theorizes that it is the sickness, or the sick individual, that initiates the healing response from the so-called healer, in the presence of a healing intent I presume. If the second of those is true, and it is the sick individual that initiates the healing response, then it is also possible for a sick individual to negate the healing intent by blocking the healing response.

Brainwaves somehow seem to be involved, because all the healers that have been tested had unusual brainwave patterns and in several studies, not only with Bengston but also others, a synchronization of the brainwave patterns of healer and patient were observed. So one possibility that comes up is that healing can occur in certain ranges that people don't as a rule experience, and the healer takes the "healee" there through brainwave synchronization. That's a hypothesis that can be tested.

Marg: It’s not that indiscriminate. Only mice within the scope of the experiment were affected.
How do you know? Were checks made on all other mice with tumours that could possibly have been affected? No? Then you don't know if it's indiscriminate or not.

Also, (Marg again, quoting Popper) Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program — a possible framework for testable scientific theories
It's rare these days to see someone use 'Darwinism' as a substitute for 'evolutionary theory', unless in the pejorative sense... But anyway - my colleagues in evolutionary biology would be surprised that they are working in a field that isn't 'testable', since they spend a fair amount of their time devising & performing research intended to do just that.

So one possibility that comes up is that healing can occur in certain ranges that people don’t as a rule experience, and the healer takes the “healee” there through brainwave synchronization. That’s a hypothesis that can be tested.

This, not being responsive, is a concession that what you are plumping for is indeed not falsifiable.

Thanks, alison. "Darwinism" bah! Popper blowing smoke. This Popper/Kuhn stuff sounds pompous & vacuous, certainly in the current context.

This Popper/Kuhn stuff sounds pompous & vacuous, certainly in the current context.

Marg grossly misinterprets Kuhn. The point that he makes with respect to Popper has to do with falsification of the current paradigm. I don't know whether she actually understands the sleight of hand involved.

The acronym ELF gets bandied about (and is mentioned as a reason for Faraday cages not working to shield the energy).

So use Permalloy.

And, finally, I'd note that by playing the card that Faraday cages don't block slowly varying magnetic fields to imply a property of the magic energy du jour, one is implicitly asserting that Bengston's left hand is a magnetic monopole.

The acronym ELF gets bandied about (and is mentioned as a reason for Faraday cages not working to shield the energy).

As Narad is hinting, Faraday cages do block dipole and quadrupole modes of ELF -- except in the alternative physical universe occupied by crank-science websites -- and the monopole mode does not exist.

If anyone feels the need for a headdesk, here is a website describing how to shield yourself from "HAARP ELF microwaves".
www.iahf.com/other/20001106.html

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

I have a few thoughts on 'healing energy', for what they are worth. The concept of a life force or energy is a common one in many different ages and cultures for example qi, prana, ka, orgone, reiki and vril energy.

Sometimes we are told it is some sort of electromagnetic energy that is generated by and sensed by our bodies. At other times we are told that it can pass unhindered through a Faraday cage, so it cannot be electromagnetic (unless it is of a very low wavelength indeed). Qi gong healers' hands supposedly emit low frequency sound waves that are responsible for healing.

Some claim that whatever this healing energy is, it acts instantaneously and distance makes no difference, which exclude all forms of energy known to science. Others claim it isn't energy transmission at all, but resonance, like two tuning forks becoming synchronized. Some suggest that healers remove bad energy from the patient (rather than transmitting healing energy to the patient) and experience the same symptoms as the patient as they heal them (just like Star Trek's 'The Empath' back in 1968).

Pranas can be accumulated by breathing exercises i.e. pranayama, but there appears to be no Hindu tradition of transmitting them to heal others; please correct me if I'm wrong, but Pranic healing appears to be a modern invention.

Orgone for some reason accumulates in containers with walls made of alternating layers of organic material and metal, or is generated by bits of metal and crystal embedded in resin (depending on who you believe).

I could go on, but I think I have made the point that there is very little if any agreement about any of the properties or even the existence of this putative energy. I think that's because it's a metaphor that has been taken literally.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2012 #permalink

I don't think I've ever seen anyone defend "magic" with such vehemence.....this guy may be doing something that may have some effect, but we'll never be able to tell what, when, where or why, we should just accept, outside of all other rational explanations, that his healing powers are real......wow....and Marg, if you believe that, I have a bridge I need to sell you.

@Krebiozen

Thanks, that's what I thought. It seems unlikely that the college would actually have anything to do with his experiments, then.

The concept of a life force or energy is a common one in many different ages and cultures for example qi, prana, ka, orgone, reiki and vril energy.

Isn't this just a god of the gaps: we didn't know what thunder was so attributed it to a god. We don't know why some things are alive and some aren't, so we attribute it to some unseen mystical 'force'. Or, if you're into it... dead aliens who mess with your health.

@Marg

As someone who actually tried Qi gong.... bullshit. The only thing it healed was my ability to have money after walking out of the session. (We could say maybe they just weren't doing it right, but according to them they were trained by the Chinese master of this particular style of Qi gong and were 'second generation' masters. Maybe they're all doing it wrong)

If “scientists” always stuck with what was already known, we wouldn’t have had Galileo, Einstein, Newton. We wouldn’t be flying and we certainly wouldn’t be computing.

Oh blah - the Galileo card now. Can't you at least come up with new wrongness?

He had no conscious way of knowing which envelope was which, but when he held envelopes with hair from sick animals, his brain, quote unquote, lit up like a Christmas tree.

Oh for [expletive deleted]. An empty envelope feels completely different to one that has something in it. How much hair are we talking, because I'm betting it wasn't a single strand but more like a tuft.

PS. Define "information".

Marg is actually a perfect example of what happens when people count the misses as hits. And also, jelly not sticking to a wall.

Damn blockquotes...

He had no conscious way of knowing which envelope was which, but when he held envelopes with hair from sick animals, his brain, quote unquote, lit up like a Christmas tree.

Oh for [expletive deleted]. An empty envelope feels completely different to one that has something in it. How much hair are we talking, because I'm betting it wasn't a single strand but more like a tuft.

PS. Define "information".

Marg is actually a perfect example of what happens when people count the misses as hits. And also, jelly not sticking to a wall.

One more question re: those Faraday cages, marg: to your knowledge did Bengston actually try isolating control group mice from his 'healing energies' using a Faraday cage?

If not, why have you leaped to the a priori conclusion it wouldn't work?

So Marg, by refusing to answer a direct question, has acknowledged that energy healing is unfalsifiable.

However, she tries to salvage her position by turning to a very strict interpretation of "falsifiability", whereby those paying attention to the criterion of falsifiability are ready to reject any hypothesis as unfalsifiable if it cannot immediately yield 100% black and white answers. In Marg's mind, all attempts to pay attention to falsifiability automatically constitute the sort of "falsificationist methodologies [that] would make science impossible".

This is, needless to say, a straw man. Marg, if you say "we shouldn't value falsifiability; we should be valuing some criterion which lets us entertain unfalsifiable ideas as possibly true while looking for falsifiable consequences of those ideas that we could then compare to the evidence to see if the evidence supports them," you're talking about falsifiability as everyone else talks about it.

But you aren't practicing it. You aren't entertaining the hypothesis that energy healing is possible; you're stating it to be fact. You're not looking for falsifiable consequences of the hypothesis, so that we can test the hypothesis against the evidence; you're trying to trumpet useless "experiments" where any result that was obtained would have been interpreted as confirmation as somehow providing strong evidence.

Just as you did in the "reiki for dogs" thread when you tried to turn "I know one thing more than you do, which is that I don't know anything" into "I know more than you do so I'm more likely to be right about energy healing," you're grabbing onto a premise and trying to take advantage of its positive implications while blithely ignoring any responsibilities or negative implications that come with it.

You claim that "Darwinism," i.e. evolutionary theory, is unfalsifiable. Yet Darwin himself in Origin of Species offered an example of falsifying his hypothesis: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Believers in "intelligent design" have invested countless hours and millions of dollars in trying to find just such an "irreducibly complex" organ, and failed. The continuing failure of highly motivated people to falsify evolutionary development of such organs is strong evidence that it is not false.

By contrast, what significance does it have that Bengston did ten "experiments" where no possible results would have been accepted as even casting doubt on the hypothesis, let alone causing it to "absolutely break down"? Not a gnat's fart.

The Salem witch trials were horrific and cruel and wrong-headed, but they were more scientific than Bengston's experiments. The villagers said, "Hold her under the water; if she drowns, then she'll be dead but our premise that she's a witch will be falsified!" By contrast, Bengston's experiments only lead to one common result: "Buy my DVD!"

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 11 Sep 2012 #permalink

Some claim that whatever this healing energy is, it acts instantaneously and distance makes no difference, which exclude all forms of energy known to science.

This in particular can be said more strongly. Such an interaction would break causality, upon which ALL science depends. The prior probability of such an effect is many, many orders of magnitude smaller even than homeopathy.

A long time ago, Jung wrote an essay about "psychic energy" ( not referring to ESP but to *mind*) in which he surveys pre-scientific concepts like Qi, Prana et al *vis a vis* more modern concepts in physics and biology ( for his day). He speculated that perhaps in the future, we'd bridge the gap. Well, he died over 50 years ago and so far...

People, regardless of what era they live in, all experience personal energy ( for want of a better term): you work hard at a task, pay attention, focus, feel strength, effort, intention, will, fierce emotion, pain...there are speciifc sensations associated with these feeling states. Some individuals seem 'powerful' by reason of their abilities, achievements or personality. Earlier cultures created a system of beliefs about what they experienced, some of which was codified into their theories of magic- what Frazer wrote about- and Qi, Mana, Prana et al.

More recently SBM has delved deeply into the secrets of physiology: so we no longer have to rely upon pre-scientific notions to explain what happens when a person thinks or has a seizure or is dreaming. So the gaps between our personal experience and knowledge of physiology become smaller and smaller with each passing decade.

When I listen to a person** speculate about energy and its relation to mental processes, health or healing, I realise that gaps are not equal in all people. Mitochondria are not Qi factories and healers don't transmit neurological potentials from their fingertips.. if they did, we'd have already found it.

** e.g. Gary Null, Mike Adams, Teresa Conrick ( Age of Autism)

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 11 Sep 2012 #permalink

All of which leads me to query: if his brain " lit up like a Christmas tree", which parts were lit? Be specific.

I doubt that the area associated with sarcasm was involved..

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 11 Sep 2012 #permalink

if they did, we’d have already found it

I think that's an important point that tends to get lost in these discussion. After centuries of people trying to obtain cures using it, if energy healing were effective we simply wouldn't be having this discussion: there would be actual hard evidence it works and its basic operating principles would have been worked out.

@ JGC:

Sure. That's exactly why I brought up (on this thread) James, Freud and Jung ( altho' I'm only a big fan of Wm)- they were pioneers in psychology/ physiology who lived a very long time ago and even though we've witnessed monumental advances in these areas AND in technology since any of them were alive...
still no dice.

(All we all know that "consciousness loads the dice" WJ).

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 11 Sep 2012 #permalink

his brain, quote unquote, lit up like a Christmas tree.

You mean, all the lights were out until you found that ONE DAMN DEAD BULB and replaced it?

@Antaeus
Perhaps you should be having this debate with Bengston. His contact info is available on the internet and he relishes debating skeptics. However, the stance that the stuff is impossible, and the man a charlatan that one hopes to see debunked, is not skepticism by any definition of the word.

@Antaeus
And further, how long did it take to show that Darwin's theory was falisifiable? Newton's? Einstein's? Were they falsifiable on the spot, or did we have to evolve a bit more scientifically before they could be tested?

Geez. That should be "falsifiable".

Perhaps you should be having this debate with Bengston. His contact info is available on the internet and he relishes debating skeptics.

Yes, Marg, you trotted this out as kiss-off line in a failed declaration of flounce nearly two weeks ago.

And further, how long did it take to show that Darwin’s theory was falisifiable? Newton’s? Einstein's?

If you'd ever actually read the writings of any of these three scientists, Marg, you'd know that all 3 describe in detail experiments that could falsify their theories, or, in the case of Darwin, describe in detail exactly what evidence would falsify his claims.

All you have to do to show that a theory is falsifiable is to propose a hyopthetical experiment, and its hypothetical results, that would convince you your hypothesis is false. Can you propose such an experiment?

Were they falsifiable on the spot, or did we have to evolve a bit more scientifically before they could be tested?

You still misunderstand. Einstein's theories were falsifiable from the get-go because he proposed experiments from the start that would validate or invalidate his hypotheses. That these experiments couldn't be conducted at the time says nothing about the falsifiability of his claims.

If you can't come up with an experiment that could produce a result that falsifies your hypothesis, what you have is not a scientific hypothesis but merely conjecture.

@DW
Large parts were lit. I can't tell you which. He has the slides.

Maybe we should say "the unconscious loads the dice".

I would like to point out that between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC humanity seems to have made a jump in consciousness that gave us Homer, Socrates, Plato, the Old Testament, the Buddha, Confucianism etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age

An argument has been made that Newton, Freud, and Einstein were part of a second such leap, and that we are currently experiencing another. From what I see the current leap of consciousness includes a growing interest in and a growing ability to do energy healing. Just because we have not been able to do it effectively in the past does not mean that we are not heading in a direction that will lead us to do it effectively in the future, and that there are not individuals in existence who can do it now.

It took no time to show that evolutionary theory was falsifiable, since as stated it identified observations sufficient to require comprehensive revision or outright abandonment, such as the identification of organisms which violated a nested hierarchy of species (fish with lobed teeth, non-vascular plants bearing seeds or flowers, etc.)

@Narad
It's not a "kiss-off" line. Bengston has far more information than anything I can offer second-hand.

However, the stance that the stuff is impossible, and the man a charlatan that one hopes to see debunked, is not skepticism by any definition of the word.

The stance that you have offered no actual evidence energy healing is effective, and that Bengston's experiments where all controls failed does not constitute such evidence, is simply to acknowledge the facts.

Maybe we should say “the unconscious loads the dice”.

What do you suppose your unconscious is trying to tell you with your series of dice rolls here, Marg?

@ Marg:

You know, I was just about to sit back, have a drink, do my nails ( pale almond is such a lovely shade) and observe the thread,
BUT..
you leave me no choice but to respond:

when you say,"large parts"...
could you be a little more specific?..was B. himself so vague?
the brain has many, many parts which are active ( lit?) simultaneously, most of the time. It is complex beyond your wildest imaginings.. it is not a few notes, it is symphonic multiplied and synchronised, a computer complicated and alive.

I almost don't know where to begin
BUT "large parts" is a rather meaningless statement, it's like if a person asked me what I did and I said, "move around". Well, I do!

If there is a theory of WHAT it is exactly that emanates from a person who heals another creature, it should delineate where it originates and what it is ( type of energy; electrical, chemical, mechanical).. is it somehow emotional? that would implicate certain regions.. if it is 'thought', other places. Perhaps it is some sort of global, Gestalt-ising, over-arching judgmental process.. guess what? that has a specific locus as well. Maybe it has something to do with visualisation... also locii for that.. earlier I spoke about sarcasm, believe it for not, there's a place a for that too.. ad infinitum, almost.

I have to take a break before I address the James quote and about 900 other issues...

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 11 Sep 2012 #permalink

Just because we have not been able to do it effectively in the past does not mean that we are not heading in a direction that will lead us to do it effectively in the future, and that there are not individuals in existence who can do it now.

How can you demonstrate that there are individuals in existence who can heal with energy if there is not an experimental result that could falsify this claim?

@AdamG
Pray tell what experimental result could possibly exist to falsify the claim that there are individuals in existence who can heal with energy?

That's what I'm asking you Marg!

You're still claiming that energy healing is possible but you can't think of a single hypothetical experiment that would falsify this claim.

Just because we have not been able to do it effectively in the past does not mean that we are not heading in a direction that will lead us to do it effectively in the future, and that there are not individuals in existence who can do it now.

How can you demonstrate that there are individuals in existence who can heal with energy if there is not an experimental result that could falsify this claim?

There's no need. That's what the "metaphysical" half is for. Marg has finally devolved into the Age of Aquarius gambit, in which the historical events she points to come from somewhere else and have returned to dole out "powers." Naturally, not everyone has the keen senses to detect the sea change that is underfoot, which makes the sensitives a form of elect.

@AdamG @Narad

The statement "there are individuals in existence who can do energy healing" is not falsifiable.

See the following:

'The concept [of falsifiability] was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable. "Falsifiable" is often taken to loosely mean "testable." A common application or usage put loosely is if it's not falsifiable, then it's not scientific. For example, the assertion "ghosts exist" is not falsifiable since nothing could possibly prove that ghosts do not exist. But the state of being falsifiable or scientific says nothing about its truth, soundness or validity, for example the unfalsifiable statement "That sunset is beautiful."'

@Narad
Have you considered that we may be evolving?

Have you considered that we may be evolving?

Q.E.D. You're just a rank occultist, Marg. Why not drag out the Eight Circuits of Consciousness while you're at it? It's just around the corner for someone anointed with the Special Resonant Frequencies.

The evolutionary function of the sixth circuit is to enable us to communicate at Einsteinian relativities and neuro-electric accelerations, not using third circuit laryngeal-manual symbols but directly via feedback, telepathy and computer link-up. Neuro-electric signals will increasingly replace "speech" (hominid grunts) after space migration.

evolving

That word, I do not think you know what it means.

The statement “there are individuals in existence who can do energy healing” is not falsifiable.

Sure it is, because it's predicated on the premise "energy healing exists." I view this claim as falsifiable. Do you?

Similarly, the statement "There are individuals in existence who can communicate with plants" is falsifiable because it is a claim predicated on the falsifiable claim that communication with plants is possible.

For example, the assertion “ghosts exist” is not falsifiable since nothing could possibly prove that ghosts do not exist.

Utter nonsense. Assuming they mean the assertion "ghosts, the spirits of deceased humans, exist as entities that are detectable in the natural world," this is completely falsifiable. That deceased humans have spirits is a falsifiable claim. That humans have ever detected such entities is a falsifiable claim.

@AdamG
If you read back along the thread, you will find that according to some posters the problem with energy healing is that it is NOT falsifiable.

No, the problem is that energy healing as you've presented it is not falsifiable. Bengston's work is more than enough to falsify energy healing for me, but apparently not for you. Why do you care anyways? You want to re-evaluate the whole scientific method anyways. Why bother to couch your conjectures in the robes of science if you think science is useless anyways?

If you read back along the thread, you will find that according to some posters the problem with energy healing is that it is NOT falsifiable.

Let's try to be specific, Madame Blavatsky. The question was whether Bengston's possession of magic healing powers is falsifiable. You conceded by default that it is not.

I would like to point out that between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC humanity seems to have made a jump in consciousness that gave us Homer, Socrates, Plato, the Old Testament, the Buddha, Confucianism etc.

Quoting a single philosopher does not make it so. (Not even if he's supported by a religious historian - which I shall take to mean, an historian of religion, since her personal faith needn't come into it.)

Also, From what I see the current leap of consciousness includes a growing interest in and a growing ability to do energy healing.

Evidence, please. People saying they can do 'energy healing' is not evidence that they can do any such thing.

@AdamG
Go back and read what @Antaeus Feldspar said about the issue of falsifiability in science.

Marg, what are you talking about? A.F. and I are in total agreement. From his comment:

By contrast, what significance does it have that Bengston did ten “experiments” where no possible results would have been accepted as even casting doubt on the hypothesis, let alone causing it to “absolutely break down”?

This is exactly what I'm saying. Why bother to promote Bengston's 'studies' if no possible result could have cast doubt on the hypothesis? You can dress up magic to look like science but it's still just magic.

@Antaeus
Perhaps you should be having this debate with Bengston. His contact info is available on the internet and he relishes debating skeptics.

Oh! Excuse me, Dr. Bengston! I didn't realize that was actually you, posting here under the pseudonym "Marg"! If I'd known that, well, actually, I'm not sure what I would have done differently, but ... what? what's that? You mean "Marg" is after all a separate person from Bengston? And Marg is the person who made the choice to start a debate here in which she thought Bengston's experiments were the trump card? And she would have been completely happy to accept the results of the debate if she'd succeeded in convincing people? Well, then, it's pretty damn rude of Marg to be saying in effect "I only have time for you if you're going to agree with me; if you're going to disagree you should go do it elsewhere."

However, the stance that the stuff is impossible, and the man a charlatan that one hopes to see debunked, is not skepticism by any definition of the word.

You trying to lecture people about skepticism is like Idi Amin lecturing about human rights. If the choice is between "energy healing is impossible" and "energy healing is extraordinarily improbable, since people have believed in it and tried to make it work for millennia and yet even though it's supposedly as easy as just having a healing intent no one can actually demonstrate it making a difference," then the latter is closer to the ideal of skepticism. But "energy healing is real and it's going to be the new paradigm and if the scientific method can't find any proof it means the scientific method is outdated" is not even in the running.

And further, how long did it take to show that Darwin’s theory was falisifiable?

Not long at all, since as already pointed out to you Darwin in the same volume where he proposed his hypothesis of evolution through natural selection said "Hey, here's some evidence that, if anyone finds it, pretty much destroys my theory." That showed right away that the hypothesis was falsifiable.

Just because we have not been able to do it effectively in the past does not mean that we are not heading in a direction that will lead us to do it effectively in the future, and that there are not individuals in existence who can do it now.

There isn't an "it" in the world that doesn't apply to. Seriously, let's substitute "lay golden eggs" in there. "Just because we didn't know in the past how to lay golden eggs doesn't mean we won't learn in the future how to lay golden eggs, or that there aren't individuals now who can lay golden eggs!" That's true, we do not have (and probably never could have) absolute 100% irrefutable proof that it is impossible to lay golden eggs, but where is the evidence that it is possible?? Neither Bengston's experiments which showed no difference between the experimental and control groups nor your fanatic faith in those experiments constitutes very convincing evidence.

But the state of being falsifiable or scientific says nothing about its truth, soundness or validity, for example the unfalsifiable statement “That sunset is beautiful.”‘

See, this is why I left Wikipedia: that sort of meaningless crap gets added to articles by editors who don't actually understand the subject they're writing about, and then it gets quoted by cretins who just want to win arguments and don't care that they're appealing to the authority of completely unknown strangers.

"That sunset is beautiful" is an aesthetic judgment; it is not only not falsifiable, it has no objective component that exists independent of an observer; it cannot be true or false. It has nothing to do with a claim like "certain individuals can exert a healing effect by simply willing it"; that is a claim about an objective state of affairs. If such individuals exist, the claim is objectively true; if such individuals do not exist, the claim is objectively false. Anyone who thinks that nothing is said about the truth of an objective claim by the fact that it is not falsifiable probably also thinks a rope which has never once been tested by the manufacturer is just as good as a rope which has undergone 100,000 hours of testing.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 11 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Antaeus
Will you marry me? Provided that you are a man, of course...

Re: Bengston. Of course I'm not Bengston. If I were Bengston I would be able to put up a considerably better defense.

I will next toss out the gem that really, truly, there are no objective claims. Cue @Narad ...

I will next toss out the gem that really, truly, there are no objective claims. Cue @Narad ...

Unless you care to attempt to define your terms, you're just continuing to smear yourself with word pudding. Ontology has already been dealt with, as has the Blobovian substitute for epistemology.

I personally have trouble with comprehending what people mean when they say "consciousness"- which I treat as an individual rather than a societal or cultural pheneomenon.

James was probably talking about consciousness developing as an adaption- selected because it was an advantage as species evolved. It loaded the dice. It helped.

It has been assumed in popular views, that the so-called unconscious is either a seething mass of instinctual aggression and sexuality ( the id) or the secret font of creativity, artistry and religio-mystical inspiration forever poised on the brink of a golden dawning of awareness.

I think of it as what is unverbalised or unverbalisable: what is below awareness, that which rules actions that are automatised and can proceed without verbal guidance and our past - lost because of constantl shifting updates. What we've forgotten. Feelings and instincts that need no words.

If we are on the brink of a New Age, I doubt that it'll be one of spirituality, distance healing and faery dust: more likely a golden age of technology. Perhaps the last 40 years or so- with constant searches for harbingers of a new Golden Age of wisdom and spiritual values- belies a human reaction provoked by fear of technology and progress.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 11 Sep 2012 #permalink

While Marg flounces about and jokingly proposes marriage, let's not forget that she is still an utter fraud who's taken what's likely to be a decent sum of money from innocent people with her claims that her hand-waving improved their health.

Did you cite Bengston's studies to those folks, Marg? What would they say if you told them you didn't think energy healing could ever be proven to be real? I'd want my money back.

@AdamG
And now who is the one making unsubstantiated statements?

from you on the reiki thread:

I have never forced it [reiki] on anyone and I have never charged anyone who didn’t experience a change.

The logical conclusion of this statement is that you do charge people who "experience a change."

So, Marg, how much do you charge people who've "experienced a change?"

@Marg

Large parts were lit. I can’t tell you which. He has the slides

Perhaps you should learn not to mention something unless you have actual physical evidence to back up your assertion.

Why do we not use argument from authority? Because believing what a person says is not evidence.

Just because we have not been able to do it effectively in the past does not mean that we are not heading in a direction that will lead us to do it effectively in the future, and that there are not individuals in existence who can do it now.

Like this, again stated as an assertion with no evidence.

Bengston has far more information than anything I can offer second-hand.

Then why bother offering second-hand info in the first place? Or, more to the point, why bother coming to argue here if you have no evidence to back it up?

I find it interesting that she harps on about 'large parts of the brain' but doesn't deal with my point about how much fur was in an envelope. A fairly basic children's game is to get them to close their eyes and experience things with other senses - like touch. I'm willing to bet a five year old can tell the difference between an empty envelope and one full of fur... unless it was a single strand of fur or such a small amount. Can Marg respond to this? Probably just as well as she has in regards to how much of the brain was lit up...

Like Marg's worldview, she is very hand-wavy and details don't seem to matter.

Have you considered that we may be evolving?

Ah, we've now moved into 'sci fi = doco' territory. This should be some kind of logical fallacy...

And she's pushed the "different ways of knowing" fallacy repeatedly.

@Antaeus
Will you marry me? Provided that you are a man, of course…

Well, it looks like she really has nothing left of value to offer...

@AdamG

Why bother to couch your conjectures in the robes of science if you think science is useless anyways?

Because on some level I think she recognises that if it were given the appearance of scientific, then it would be accepted by a larger number of people.

@AdamG
Many people I treat for free; some I treat by donation. The donation is voluntary; no one has to pay it. People pay it willingly. If they ask how much, I tell them an amount but also add that it is up to them. I've had people give me more; I've had people give me less.

The pattern seems to be that after the first treatment change lasts a few hours to a few days; after the second treatment it lasts longer, a week or two; after the third or the fourth it can be lasting. It can also plateau, as for instance with torn knee ligaments. From experience I can tell you that when people work with physiotherapists they are willing to have a dozen or so treatments with gradual improvement before they give up. So they are willing to pay physiotherapists up to a point even if it doesn't help -- but they would not be willing to pay me.

BTW I meant to ask you, @AdamG, how many people ask for their money back after the chemotherapy they received, shown in laboratory studies to shrink tumors by X per cent and give, say, a median survival of 4 extra months, turns out not to work on them? And if not, why not?

@Flip
The marriage proposal was a joke. I have a soft spot for highly intelligent and erudite men.

Re: hairs. Bengston says even one strand is sufficient, so I doubt the envelopes were stuffed full of hair. Plus, I doubt that mice have that much hair to begin with. Take a few hairs from a mouse, @Flip, put them in envelopes, and see if you can tell apart the ones that have hair and the ones that don't just by randomly holding them.

@Marg

Dear I won't be doing experiments with envelopes. Not until you provide factual evidence of what Bengston actually did himself - your assertions of hearing it during his talks are not examples of documentation of his methodology.

Once again, you show an inability to ignore argument from authority. If Bengston said it, it must be true.

Hey, wanna meet Angelina Jolie - she and I are best friends and she taught me all about how the sky is red.

You two need an introduction to Randi and his million dollars.

As for the marriage proposal: I got that it was a joke. My point was that you have so little evidence to provide that you have nothing left *but to make jokes*.

I propose another way to look at the issue of 'healing' ( including reiki, prayer, energy healing etc):
it is not a SB ( data supported) medical intervention, it is instead an expression of faith and religious in nature.
It is not very different from a person recieving visits from a minister, rabbi, imam et al who might pray for or along with them. Many religious/ cultural groups believe in faith healing and prayer, including laying-on-of-hands, chakra balancing, Qi adjustments.

I am an atheist from a largely atheistic/ agnostic family but I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with people believing in faith-based interventions alongside SBM. I would worry if it was used to REPLACE SBM or if it was called 'evidence-based'. I have heard the latter from an accomplished healer and woo-meister.

Religious practice may provide emotional comfort to those who were raised with it or accept it. It may be a means of connection to a larger community which share beliefs and historical similarites. And people DO make donations to communities of their choice.
Just don't call it science because it isn't.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

Narad,

Eight Circuits of Consciousness

I quite like that model as an idea to play with; at least the first 4 circuits make some sort of sense. With circuits 5-8 I run into some teleological difficulties.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Narad:
@ Krebiozen:

Altho' I've looked over the 8 circuits before, I subscribe to an entirely different view which might even take drugs into account- it involves how deeply something is processed and the lower you go the less language is involved.

However, I have witnessed even the agnostic resort to quasi-religious language if enough nirvanic substances/ etc were involved.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg:

BTW I meant to ask you, @AdamG, how many people ask for their money back after the chemotherapy they received, shown in laboratory studies to shrink tumors by X per cent and give, say, a median survival of 4 extra months, turns out not to work on them? And if not, why not?

I'm not Adam, but here's my answer. Generally, no, they don't get their money back, and here's why: they were told ahead of time that there was a chance it wouldn't work and told of all the risks. They made the decision to pursue it. If your mechanic doesn't know what's wrong with your car, but suggests he can try replacing a part and see if that does it, and it fails, do you ask for your money back? Well, maybe you do, but odds are the mechanic will not refund you. It's the same principle; as long as they were upfront about what you were getting for the money, it was a fair transaction.

Regarding the unconscious....

I think we tend to put too much store by our consciousness, as it if it is some discrete entity. I don't think it is, and I think the line between the conscious and unconscious mind is extremely fuzzy, if indeed there is a meaningful distinction at all. Certainly there are things going on in our brains that we are unaware of. Huge amounts of things. But these aren't really below consciousness; we just aren't paying attention to them, because we'd go mad if we tried and there's not really any point. Things like vision. I'm a software engineer; if you look at the enormous effort that a computer has to put into synthetic vision, you'd have a staggering respect for the *magic* that the human brain pulls off so effortlessly. What you see is so much more than what your eyes detect. It's heavily processed. Even if we set aside for a moment the amazing persistence of vision that smooths out our saccades and makes everything appear equally colorful and clear when in fact our visual field is very different depending on distance from the fovea, just think of this: you don't see a photograph. You see *things*. You see faces, and expressions. You don't usually have to think about identifying them; they are already identified. You even see faces where there aren't faces, and can tease out many hidden patterns without even thinking about it. And then there's writing. If you're fully literate, you don't sound out words. They just flow. And when you look at a letter, even a fake letter created for a sci-fi movie or something, you nearly always just know that it's a letter. It's not something else, it's a letter. How do you know that? It is amazing the work the brain does.

This is all done without thinking about it -- unconsciously. And that sort of thing is going on all the time with all of your senses, to levels that we haven't even begun to plumb. Our bodies begin to react to threats and the presence of suitable mates before we consciously realize it. We're also lagging significantly behind reality, but don't realize that either because the brain adjusts the timeline without us being aware of it. We interpret speech effortlessly (most of the time, unless there is a problem with the ears or a neurological deficit -- all of these things can be affected by neurological deficits). You don't have to imagine something metaphysical to be amazed by it; it's staggeringly powerful and beautiful.

Marg:

I would like to point out that between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC humanity seems to have made a jump in consciousness that gave us Homer, Socrates, Plato, the Old Testament, the Buddha, Confucianism etc.

You seem to be arguing that there was some advance in human consciousness. I disagree. It wasn't an advance in consciousness -- it was a crucial innovation: writing. This is the oldest period from which the thoughts of great men and women survive. Before that, there may well have been equal giants, but there was no way to preserve their genius. Pictograms only go so far. Writing of course also permits greater collaboration; the joining of minds. It wasn't an expanded consciousness in this period, it was better exploitation of that consciousness.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Calli Arcale

I had the same thought, re: writing. For the first time, we were able to put our thoughts down in a permanent and easily interpreted form that could be passed down from generation to generation. As you say, there may well have been people equally as intelligent and insightful as those Marg listed, but they didn't have any means by which to transfer their thought down through successive generations.

Where there are lapses in the occurrence of the "spark of genius", it may simply be due to the fact that a written record was not left behind. For example, during the Dark Ages, very few people were literate, and what literature was produced was often very tightly controlled by the church. Many erudite documents were destroyed (e.g., the medical texts at Alexandria, among others). Oral tradition can overcome this to only a very small degree before it veers wildly off, rendering the original thought unknown (think the game "telephone").

And then there are other the leaps of logic that the thinker either did not write down or whose writings just lingered in obscurity somewhere, lost to the sands of time. What we see are the things that got publicity, for lack of a better word.

To add to the writing, culture made a significant influence. A culture that embraces knowledge-seeking is more likely to find new knowledge than one that embraces rote-learning. If there was one thing that caused the scientific revolution, it was the realization that Aristotle wasn't always right - and proving that he was sometimes wrong.

By W. Kevin Vicklund (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Calli:

See my discussion of the 'unconscious' at 10:42 pm. If you look at the full moon when it's near the horizon- vs when it's at the zenith- it appears to be much larger, although the visual angles taken up by its images on the retina are exactly the same- because other information is taken into account to calculate perceived distance ( same angle + cues for more distance = 'larger'/ filled space looks to be more than empty). Perceptual illusions illustrate a conflict ( or sorts) between vision and knowledge.

@ Todd W.:

Some cross-cultural studies suggest that literacy changes how people interact with the world. Some might even say that we learn to 'see' it differently- i.e. look for different things, divide it up into parts differently.

@ W. Kevin:

Agreed. Yet some would have us go back to the naivete resplendent prior to the Enlightenment. Go figure.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Calli
Wasn't the development of writing a crucial leap in human consciousness? Esp. since seemed to occur across a broad spectrum of societies within a relatively limited period of time.

I thoroughly enjoyed your description of the workings of the brain.

@Narad
Thank you for the Eight Circuits of Consciousness. Why is there no room here for the energy healing model, particularly in the 5th and the 8th? I also found Leary's proposition that the higher four circuits exist for future use by humans interesting.

Thank you all for this discussion.

Why is there no room here for the energy healing model, particularly in the 5th and the 8th? I also found L

You appear to have utterly failed to grasp the meaning of "bad Fazzm." And that you don't know what 'energy' means. And that the cosmic spook show churning around in your head is in fact just in your head. You wish to pretend that this séancey hokum is not just on par with fantastically detailed knowledge of the physical world, but somehow even better, because, darnit, there's just not enough straight magic to be had in that dry field, and all you can understand is magic, and so "understanding" magic is special, and so you're not an ignoramus. You're wrong.

That's why.

I also found Leary’s proposition that the higher four circuits exist for future use by humans interesting.

That's the teleological difficulty I mentioned. Humans are born with higher brain circuits that are designed to be turned on by zero gravity? Designed by whom? The human brain is an astonishing thing but I think many of its most amazing abilities are spandrels.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

The "Eight Circuits" are pretty much part and parcel of Leary's prediction of wondrous happenings associated with the coming of comet Kohoutek, which he renamed "comet Starseed," which name he presumably ripped off from Larry Niven and which was a dud in its appearance. Everything Leary was cheap and derivative after ~1960.

@Narad
What arrogance to assume that our fantastically detailed understanding of the physical world is complete.

What arrogance to assume that our fantastically detailed understanding of the physical world is complete.

You aren't saying anything about the physical world. It is merely an imitative prop in a supernatural drama that you invoke in order to sell the sorry exercise to people who might notice that "I summon ghosts" is problematic, but not "I beam healing energy, and there are these 'geomagnetic probes.'"

But Marg, I believe that what *you're* talking about has very little to do with the physical world but can more kindly be described as encompassing spiritual, ultramundane and mystical phenomena.
And who in the world around here believes that he or she has all of the answers about how the physical world operates although MOST of us would probably agree that, as a start, what most refer to as psychological, mental, intellectual, social or even spiritual and mystical emanates/ emerges from a very physical place that proceeds itself from basic laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Bye bye.

Gentlemen: start your engines.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Narad @DW
What I am trying to say is that the phenomenon I call "energy healing" (which may or may not turn out to have anything with energy) might be a part of the physical world that we do not yet know about/understand and that you are only attributing it to the magical because of our current state of ignorance about it. Five hundred years ago all the science we now take for granted would have been attributed to the fantastic and the magical.

@Narad
To what purpose did you bring up the Eight Circuits of Consciousness? And just out of curiosity, what is the scientific take on Kundalini?

@ Narad:

And I didn't see your comment because I was editing my own.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Marg :

Just when I thought I was out...
Seriously, I attribute nothing to magic but *people* may attribute things that they don't understand or things that don't exist to magic or soul or deity. When I say the issue is 'spiritual or mystical" I believe that those concerns will eventually resolve down to the psychological. For example, art and literature are products of human beings who are animals who create abstract and fanciful innovations. Technology is also a unique product of human 'spirit'- in other words, I don't see much beyond this life but it can be incredibly rich and un-concerned with physicality. Or not.

I think I should leave the kundalini to someone else. I should probably order a drink.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

What I am trying to say is that the phenomenon I call “energy healing” (which may or may not turn out to have anything with energy) might be a part of the physical world that we do not yet know about/understand and that you are only attributing it to the magical because of our current state of ignorance about it.

Do you know what "begging the question" actually means, Marg? Moreover, here you try to insinuate yourself into that which you desperately wish to appropriate with what "we" don't know, although you plainly don't know a goddamned thing about the physical world aside from the sort of thing that prevents you from getting run over when crossing the street. There is no "we," Marg. It is a useful construction in certain situtations, particularly among peers, but you're not a peer in this endeavor. What is going on is that you want what someone else has and thus declare it to be community propery of some sort held by The Cosmic Mind, to which all have access if only they can tune to the Right Frequencies, and so you can just toss around terms willy-nilly and expect to be taken seriously. All you are actually doing is engaging in marketing.

Five hundred years ago all the science we now take for granted would have been attributed to the fantastic and the magical.

You have already played this card. You didn't live 500 years ago, and as such, it's just more self-serving fantasy, to put it mildly.

To what purpose did you bring up the Eight Circuits of Consciousness?

To see whether you had the slightest inclination to draw any sort of distinctions between different varieties of downright crap. Mission accomplished.

And just out of curiosity, what is the scientific take on Kundalini?

I think you can get a good view of it single-handed with a mirror, so perhaps you should check with it on what it has to say first.

@All
What I am talking about does have to do with the physical world. You just haven't seen/experienced it yet. I have. Insulting me doesn't make it go away.

What I am talking about does have to do with the physical world.

No, it doesn't. It is standard-issue occultist blab and common as dirt. If somebody got Central Casting on the blower, the actress delivered would be wearing a diaphanous gown and while twirling and ululating. Maybe some finger cymbals.

And "accepting donations," of course.

Marg’s comments put me in mind of a case study I was reading this morning in employment law, wherein a woman sued for wrongful termination. Her dismissal was for repeatedly violating company policies on absenteeism, and her defense was that she used magic to make sure she got her work done.

(She fell into not one but two protected categories which I assume is how she convinced a lawyer to take her case).

I will at this point recommend the bound photo collection Aquarian Odyssey for flavor value should anyone run across it in a second-hand shop, even though the gossip I've heard about Snyder is anything but flattering.

Marg:

Wasn’t the development of writing a crucial leap in human consciousness? Esp. since seemed to occur across a broad spectrum of societies within a relatively limited period of time.

I'm arguing more that it was a crucial leap in technology, not consciousness. It did not occur at the same time worldwide, incidentally (not that we can know all the times that writing was developed; there are definitely dead scripts out there, and almost certainly many that have been completely lost to human knowledge). Writing arose in Mesopotamia around 3200 BC (cunieform, in Sumer) and by then was also in use in Egypt (hieroglyphics), and sparked the development of many other systems of writing across the Old World -- our alphabet is descended from this. By 1200 BC, a very different system of writing was developed in China, although archeologists like to argue about whether it was a novel invention or whether the concept of language was adopted through exposure to the writing systems of the Mideast; I'm inclined to the notion that it was independent, as it takes a very different strategy to representing language. Around 600 BC, a completely independent invention of writing appears to have occurred in Mesoamerica. The Rapanui of Easter Island independently invented writing (totally from scratch, apparently) no earlier than the 13th century (a truly unique script called Rongorongo which no one alive can read), perhaps the most recent invention of writing (and not just invention of a script), although there is some debate whether the script actually predated European contact (which surely would have demonstrated at least the concept of writing).

The societies who did develop writing in close proximity in time (Egypt, Sumer) were also in close geographic proximity, so I wouldn't read too much into that. They traded openly with one another; whichever came up with the idea first, the other would have quickly realized the value and devised their own script.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

If somebody got Central Casting on the blower, the actress delivered would be wearing a diaphanous gown and while twirling and ululating. Maybe some finger cymbals.

I was more imagining Margaret Rutherford in the role of Madame Arcati. Showing my age.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

They traded openly with one another; whichever came up with the idea first, the other would have quickly realized the value and devised their own script.

I imagine the Pharaoh of the day, hearing from his advisors of this "script" technology the Sumerians were using to record who had paid taxes and to write one another letters, calling together the greatest minds of the Upper and Lower kingdoms and telling them "We must close the Missive Gap!"

It is pretty obvious that Egyptian hieroglyphics were designed by a committee.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 12 Sep 2012 #permalink

Wasn’t the development of writing a crucial leap in human consciousness?

That sounds like a variety of 'The Hundredth Monkey' phenomenon which is, of course, a myth.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

I reckon Marg has a kangaroo loose in her top paddock. Either that, or the energy imprint of one.

@Marg

What I am talking about does have to do with the physical world. You just haven’t seen/experienced it yet. I have. Insulting me doesn’t make it go away.

You keep saying this, but have not succeeded in providing evidence for it.

What I am talking about does have to do with the physical world. You just haven’t seen/experienced it yet. I have. Insulting me doesn’t make it go away.

For thousands of years people "saw" the sun going around the Earth. They "experienced" that. They might well argue that what they had seen with their own eyes surely outweighed any wisenheimer who claimed it was the Earth going around the sun instead. Except as we know, those wisenheimers were the ones who were correct, not the ones who said "You just haven’t seen/experienced it yet. I have."

Even if every person's senses and memories were perfect (they aren't) and never perceived what they expected to see rather than what was really happening (which they do all the time) it still wouldn't mean that that person was automatically the expert on why it happened. And that is what you are claiming here, that having personally seen/experienced "energy healing" means you couldn't possibly be wrong about it being energy healing.

Furthermore, you are claiming that the same experience makes you similarly infallible on things you didn't see/experience (Bengston and his quantum-entangled mice) or things that you couldn't have seen/experienced (a "healer" exerting a healing intent and a patient 2000 miles away being affected by it.)

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

Five hundred years ago all the science we now take for granted would have been attributed to the fantastic and the magical.

And how did what we previously attributed to magic become understood scientifically? By collecting observations, proposing hypotheses which explain those observations, designing and carrying out esperiments to corroborate or falsify those hypotheses, and gradually accumulating enough evidence to derive comprehensive, predictive and falsifiable theoretical models.

In fact, this is what Bengston initially tried to do with his mouse experiments--he beleived energy healing might be an effective therapy, he proposed a hypothesis , he tested that hypotheses ("If energy healing is real, if I take two groups of mice, give both cancer, treat one group with healing energy and leave the second group untreated, the treated group should survive longer/in greater numbers than the untreated group"), he got his results ("Mice in both groups surivived with equal frequencey for equivalent lengths of time"), and he reached the obvious conclusion ("I have failed to demonstrate that healing energy is any more effective at treating cancer than no treatment whatsoever")

No, wait...somehow he didn't reach the obvious conclusion. Instead, he asserted without evidence that trating one group of mice with healing energy somehow someway cured both groups of mice--even those which didn;t receive any. And that's why his experimetns are a total fail if yone's seriously interested in having healing energy move from the realm of magic into the realm of science. You cannot ignore results you'd rather not have generated. You can't at the conclusion of experiment which failed to corroborate your initial hypothesis declare a completely new outcome to argue that it instead did ("Umm, I ACTUALLY predicted BOTH groups of mice would have identical outcomes...yeah, that's the ticket!").

In science you go where the evidence leads you, whether it's where you wanted to end up or not.

I think that Marg mixes up the "evolution of consciousness" ( whatever THAT is) with cultural transformations that affect how people think and live:

a long time ago ( the Victorian era) those who visited less industrially developed cultures assumed that the *people* were less advanced than they themselves. They were really looking at culture: there was less literacy which made the outsiders assume that higher mental processes were not going on; later research ( compiled byCole and Scribner, others) have shown that less inductrialised societies DO use abstraction but you have to look for it! If you give them standard 'western' tests- they don't fare very well ( Why should they?) BUT if you look at how they live, you'll find complex business arrangements and trade, systems of social/ familial heirarches and even ways of speaking by allusion- so you can discuss your opponents in their presence ( guarded speech). All higher mental processes- what we might call 'executive functioning' and formal operations.

We might say that literacy and symbol manipulation make use of formal operational thought ( including the roots of scientific analysis) more LIKELY. Within 'modern' societies there is a vast range of levels of functioning which is most likely dependent upon social class. Something which education can address, not *consciousness*.

New Agey folks have co-opted that word so entirely that I am loathe to use it myself.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

I have been reading Nassim Taleb's 'Fooled By Randomness' and this passage, at the very beginning of the Preface, reminded me of this discussion:

This book is the synthesis of, on one hand, the no-nonsense mathematical trader (self-styled "practitioner of uncertainty") who spent his life trying to resist being fooled by randomness and trick the emotions associated with uncertainty and, on the other, the aesthetically obsessed, literature-loving human being willing to be fooled by any form of nonsense that is polished, refined, original, and tasteful. I am not capable of avoiding being the fool of randomness; what I can do is confine it to where it brings some aesthetic gratification.

Seeing patterns in noise and perceiving beauty in some randomly distributed light wavelengths that hit our retinas at particular positions of the earth's rotation are part of what makes being human pleasurable. Thinking that random noise has hidden meaning or that beauty is a quality of a sunset and not something that happens in our brains is simply a mistake, and a very common one.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

If somebody got Central Casting on the blower, the actress delivered would be wearing a diaphanous gown and while twirling and ululating. Maybe some finger cymbals.

I was more imagining Margaret Rutherford in the role of Madame Arcati. Showing my age.

I was picturing Emma Thompson as Professor Trelawney in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Actually, that's also the image I get of Marg every time she posts. Just wait until the moon moves into the seventh house, skeptics - then you'll be sorry you laughed!

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

This is like trying to explain the color "red" to a bunch people who are only able to see in black and white, and what's more are quite proud of it and firmly believe that seeing in black and white is the only way to see. "Prove it to me that red exists!" they cry in unison. The loss, truly, is yours.

@Marg - stupid analogy. Color is provable through various means. "Magic" on the other hand, is not.....

@Lawrence
Color being provable does little good to the person who cannot perceive it.

The loss, truly, is yours.

I don't think the notion that this is all about your being "special" is really in need of reinforcement.

@ Marg:

Because it's just an abstract with no details?

@marg - you seriously believe, in this day and age, when we can detect and measure the smallest particles in existence, see to the farthest corners of our universe, and continue our understanding of the natural world, that this one guy (and yourself, I guess) can perceive something that no one else on the planet can?

This is probably an earlier version, but Jones just seems to do the same thing over and over again, so it probably doesn't matter:

A single experiment used 10 identical petri dishes with HeLa cells in culture. The dishes were numbered: xA1, xA2, xB1, xB2, xC1, xC2, xD1, xD2, xE1, xE2. Here, x represents the experiment number, A1 and A2 served as controls, B1 and B2 were subjected to radiation only, C1 and C2 were given Pranic Healing after radiation, D1 and D2 were given Pranic Healing before radiation, and E1 and E2 were given Pranic Healing both before and after radiation. Radiation levels and exposure times were chosen to produce a 50% survival rate 24 hours post radiation. To date, we have conducted 520 such single experiments using 10 different Pranic Healers. The results of these studies are summarized in the table below.

[Table]

These results indicate that treatment of the cells with Pranic Healing produces a major change in cell survival rate. It should be noted, however, that this table is based on 458 single experiments where the Pranic Healer produced a positive results [sic]. In 62 single experiments or about 12% of the total 520 runs, the Healer produced no effect whatever. The reasons for these failures remain unclear and are still under investigation. It would seem that Pranic Healing produces an effect at a certain level or produces no effect at all.

Great data reporting, bro. I can't even figure out what this is supposed to mean:

Secondly, the shielding of cells from EMF and gamma radiation had no effect on the results. In one extreme case, both the healer and the cells were shielded and separated by a distance of some 6000 miles. These results were indistinguishable from those in which the cells and healer were in the same room and without shielding.

Um, when was this gamma shielding applied? One may of course think back on the "basis" of "Pranic healing," which is perception of "auras" and "beaming colors" to color-corrrect the "aura." Given that Jones seems to take 24 hours as an endpoint, perhaps he should get someone to "heal" half a dish and no more. Clearly, this sort of detail can't present that much of a problem given that aura perception of a dish full of cells from 6000 miles away is a snap. Furthermore, it remains, as usual, unaddressed why "healing energy" for some reason can't cause harm. It is merely "auric" knob-twiddling, after all.

Regarding the last point, I foolishly failed to repeat that what's being "healed," which is to say, saved from irradiation, are HeLa cells. Ergo, Pranic "healing" should be able to nullify radiotherapy for cancer.

@Narad
You see, even when you are presented with valid evidence you say "there is no red".

@Marg - and it is valid, why exactly?

There might be a reason that people, over the aeons, see the universe as being infused with human values and forces which are 'on our side', or run contrary to our wishes-

we tend to view the non-human anthropomorphically which might have an adaptive advantage and was selected: Gestalt psychologists, like Kohler, believed that we might see a storm as "angry" or "malevolent" because some of its qualities resembled human emotions/ motivations; the key of Dmaj sounds "triumphant" to some ( including GF Handel); we see 'faces' in electrical appliances and other machines; certain abstract patterns of tones of grey seem "meditative", while others seem "exciting" ( Josef Albers).

There must be an advantage in viewing the world as such- perhaps it is an ability to recognise emotion/ motive in people and animals that "overshot" its mark. The inability to read emotion and intent in others is seen as a disability. We've all read about it.

Postulating 'healing" energies that benefit humans ( and animals, perhaps) are probably a reflection of that anthropo-centric view of reality. Not only do we see patterns that might not really exist but we see them tailored to fit our needs as well.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

This is like trying to explain the color “red” to a bunch people who are only able to see in black and white, and what’s more are quite proud of it and firmly believe that seeing in black and white is the only way to see. “Prove it to me that red exists!” they cry in unison. The loss, truly, is yours.

Marg, you have not explained anything to anybody. You showed up here with a fixed belief that something you call "energy healing" exists and is superior to chemotherapy, and you keep citing the same meaningless studies over and over as one person after another points out their flaws to you. Your devotion to this fixed belief is also preventing you from seeing William Bengston for what he truly is: a cheap huckster bilking money from the gullible and desperate. You can throw around all the science-y sounding buzzwords you want, but at its essence your argument is based on wishful thinking, which has never been proven to cure anything.

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Edith
I refer you to Dr. Joie Jones's study. See above.

You see, even when you are presented with valid evidence you say “there is no red”.

Really? How? Tell me precisely how based on the content of that comment.

Marg's analogy completely falls apart unless you assume the very point that we keep patiently explaining that we are not going to accept without evidence a whole lot more convincing than what's been presented so far; namely, that energy healing exists.

If we all saw in black-and-white and some people saw instead in black and white and red, there would be ways to test that claim. For instance, red-seers would tell us that blood is red. We, the black-and-white-visioned, could prepare a test where sealed glasses were filled either with a small quantity of blood, or with a dark ink that had exactly the same opacity as the blood. We would test the glasses by showing them to a large number of b&w-seers, and verify that they could not tell which was blood and which was ink by sight. Then we would get as many red-seers as possible to try to distinguish the blood glasses from the ink glasses. Even if only a small minority of those who thought they saw "red" actually demonstrated a consistent ability to distinguish red blood from black ink, too consistently to be explained plausibly by chance, it would still be significant scientific evidence that this mysterious "red" color did in fact exist and that some people could see it, even if not everyone could.

However, if someone explained that "oh, the color red disappears in the presence of skeptics, and that's why whenever I'm receiving donations for my wonderful red-seeing abilities, they're at full power, but when it's in a laboratory setting I can't demonstrate a red-seeing ability any better than chance," it hardly needs to be said that it would convince no one but the very gullible.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

Can someone please explain to me why Joie Jones's study, in which pranic healing significantly affected the survival of cells damaged by gamma radiation in multiple experiments, does not qualify to show that energy healing real?

Oh, no, I feel another laughing fit coming on. Although one can heal through thousands of miles through the ether, one can also beam it over the telephone to a glass of water and presumably put it into an IV bag (PDF). Conclusion?

The fact that, in all four cases (S1, S2, S3, P), Subtle Energy encoded information was successfully recorded, stored and reproduced technologically, indicating that Subtle Energy is not just a “biofield” but an energy field belonging to the Universe just like the electromagnetic field.

That's right: "subtle energy" isn't subtle energy.

Can someone please explain to me why Joie Jones’s study, in which pranic healing significantly affected the survival of cells damaged by gamma radiation in multiple experiments, does not qualify to show that energy healing real?

Do you understand what HeLa cells are? Jones is trying to figure out a way to bump off cancer patients.

@Narad
You are simply saying "there is no red". You are not providing any kind of critique that invalidates the experiment.

You are simply saying “there is no red”. You are not providing any kind of critique that invalidates the experiment.

I did not ask you to simply repeat yourself like a wind-up doll.

@Narad
You are still not providing any kind of critique that invalidates the experiment.

You are still not providing any kind of critique that invalidates the experiment.

You have not stated what was in my comment that means that I am saying "there is no red." Try to f*cking read.

Marg, in what ways are HeLa cells different than normal cells of a certain tissue type?

Even if we accept Jones's results at face value, why would we want to reduce the effect of radiation on cancer cells?

I meant you are coming from the firm belief that there can be no such thing as energy healing (= "red"). And now you are frustrated because you can't provide anything concrete in Jones's experiment that disproves the validity of his findings and resort to expletives for want of something better.

The issue is whether energy healing has a concrete effect or is the figment of someone's imagination. Jones shows the former to be the case. That is all.

...we investigated possible mediation effects of Pranic Healing on HeLa cells in culture subjected to gamma radiation. In a preliminary set of 70 experiments using 4 different healers we found that Pranic Healing could indeed significantly enhance the survival rate of cells subjected to radiation.

These people are laughably misinformed. The result of their own experiment, as they present it, is that Pranic Healing, when applied after radiation treatment, made cancer cells live longer.

Jones shows the former to be the case.

How can you reach this conclusion without looking at their experimental design, their raw data, and their statistical analysis? Otherwise you are just blindly taking them at their word. You wouldn't do that, Marg, would you? Do you have access to this information? If so, we'd love to see it.

I meant you are coming from the firm belief that there can be no such thing as energy healing (= “red”).

In that comment, since you refuse to actually address the question, I did the following: (1) Noted that Jones's "money table" excludes negative results. This is like calculating a baseball team's win-loss record but throwing away the shutouts. (2) Observed that the "gamma shielding" business is completely unexplained. (3) Used mean, mean scare quotes in the process of proposing a different experiment than the signature one he does over and over and over again. (4) Raised the question (or, at least, started) what constitutes "healing."

You have addressed none of this. Instead, you repeatedly barf up an apparently new, self-satisfied, cliche tag line. Color me unimpressed.

And now you are frustrated because you can’t provide anything concrete in Jones’s experiment that disproves the validity of his findings and resort to expletives for want of something better.

I am not "frustrated," I'm tired of your behaving like a waterhead.

And I'm kind of curious what Jones's gamma source is, to boot.

@ lurkers:

Whether you realise it or not, most of my comments are aimed at YOU- so I thought that I should clarify a few things:
I am comparing science and faith; if you take the definition commonly used by Christians, faith is belief in "things unseen"- in other words, it doesn't need to be proven or shown: it is already believed in. Just like that.

Science-if it is worth that label- demands evidence and data. Variables that may confound the results should be controlled. Whatever causes bias should be taken into account and controlled.
Obviously, those who design and run the studies might be biased towards their own ideas and theories- thus, there is blinding, use of independent observers or testing, shuffling how questions are worded or presented because we know that ALL of those factors- and many more- can affect outcomes. Statistical analyses show the degree/ amount of the effect or whether there is any effect at all.

Faith may be the biggest bias of all: I often hear an advocate of alt med unreservedly accept any result or study- no matter how awfully bad it is- that fits into his view that "Natural is best/ Pharmaceuticals are dangerous" but tear apart any research that show that drugs work- even the most thoughtful, well-done, replicated studies that most of the SB world accepts as the standard.

People can cheat or fix data deliberately and also innocently see what they want to see. When we understand some of the tendencies people have ( why do you think I went through the entire *Sturm und Drang* about anthropomorphism above?) we can work to eliminate them.

A person who truly believes- has 'faith' in something- may see it even if it isn't there: the job science has to do is to convince those WITHOUT faith in that particular paradigm by displaying unquestionable evidence- data- which accounts for all of the foreseeable confounders and biases.

So what would it take to convince me that distance healing or reiki works? Probably, clearcut, un-confounded data that would have been replicated by sceptics- maybe even myself. You might even say I am biased AGAINST it because it does not flow naturally from the laws of physics, chemistry and biology in THIS universe. It is UNlikely.
It would have to be powerful data to overcome that whole ball of wax..

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Marg

This is like trying to explain the color “red” to a bunch people who are only able to see in black and white, and what’s more are quite proud of it and firmly believe that seeing in black and white is the only way to see. “Prove it to me that red exists!” they cry in unison. The loss, truly, is yours.

What's that you say? Is somebody now channeling my comment about Angelina Jolie, argument from authority, and a red sky?

Why yes, yes she is.

My comment: September 5, 2:20 am. And yet, she still doesn't seem to have gotten my point about argument from assertion.

@DW
The universe is a far bigger place than we can conceive of, and there are things in it that we cannot account for with all our science. I think all of you are coming from a place of fear: it's like science is an amulet that protects you from all the great unknowns. So long as you believe we can control our world, you believe that we will be safe. I doubt that any experiment with energy healing will ever convince you.

So long as you believe we can control our world, you believe that we will be safe.

I hate to break this to you, but that's precisely what "energy healing" is all about.

(Hence the need for "we," hence the need for an elect of "sensitives," etc.)

What Narad said. If 'energy healing' isn't underlain by a desire to control one's world, then what - exactly - are its underpinnings?

This is like trying to explain the color “red” to a bunch people who are only able to see in black and white

A relevant example here is the career of the distinguished colour vision researcher Kurt Nordby, himself a black / white monochromat. He asked for evidence that this "colour" phenomenon existed; he received it; he studied the effect.
Same here. Show evidence that a phenomenon exists and we will study it. So far I'm only seeing bovine side-products that have little novelty, due to childhood on a dairy farm.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 13 Sep 2012 #permalink

Apparently Joie Jones used a gadget called a Vital Force Technology™generator to prevent some of the cancerous cells being killed by radiation. In this article (PDF) by Dr. Yury Kronn, developer of this technology, Dr. Kronn explains that because both Dark Matter and Life Force are undetectable by science, they are obviously the same thing. Not only is this obvious, apparently, but this insight is the basis of Vital Force Technology™. I started counting the leaps of faith and non sequiturs in that article, but there are just too many of them. Lest anyone doubt that Dr. Konn is a proper credentialed scientist, his biography here is impressive, as long as you ignore the links to tattvas oils, amulets, gem elixirs, crystals and the like at the top of the page. None of this fills me with confidence in the reliability of Jones' results.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 14 Sep 2012 #permalink

Sorry, Dr. Kronn, not Konn (though very likely con, I suspect).

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 14 Sep 2012 #permalink

I would like to know just what this energy is? I think we have asked around this question, but Marg, of course has a difficult time answering direct questions or pointin us to an authority who can explain it. If this energy exists, how do we measure it? Use it? Manipulate it? How will we know that this energy is the ONLY source for this magic? I would have thought that the first issue is to define what you are testing, not just the outcome.

Wow, Marg, the results produced by Bengston and Jones are very impressive. A million dollars, no strings attached, would go a long way toward funding further research, don't you think? And it happens that James Randi has a million dollars burning a hole in his pocket, just waiting to be won by anyone who can do what you say has been done easily and reproducibly. Of course Randi demands that this be done under conditions that exclude mistake, coincidence, and fraud ...

Great data reporting, bro. I can’t even figure out what this is supposed to mean:

It means they omitted the experiments where pranic healing failed to extendcell survival when they crunched the numbers.

Hey, it's standard prcatice to through out any results that don't support your preferred conclusion, right?

What do you mean, you don't?

MArg, I'm sorry, but I haven't seen Jones actually provide evidence that pranic healing protects HeLa cells from gamma radiation damage. Your link directed me to the abstract where Jones asserts this is the case, but it provides no relevant details regarding the experiment's design (How the cells were grown, at what passage where they harvested for the experiment, how much and for how long they were exposed to gamma radiation, how cell survival; was quantified (cell counting? vital staining? MTT assay for cell activity), it provides no indication that experiments were blinded (did the people measuring viability know which samples had ben 'healed' and which had not prior to measurement?) And critically it provides no actual data from the experiments themselves.

Should I also note that this is the abstract from a talk, not a journal publication, and as such does not represent a peer reviewed source?

These details are important. Their omission requires we simply take Jone's word that he's demonstrated the magical healing of cells in culture, and I'm sorry--word alone is not enough. If it were, we'd logically have to accept any claim made by any alternative or faith healer as proven, even in cases when the claims themselves were diametrically opposed.

I noted in the final remarks from a previous talk Jones gave in May 2006 at the Seventh World Pranic Healers’ Convention in Mumbai, India the promise "Our study, the details of which will be published shortly in the scientific
literature, clearly shows that Pranic Healing can reverse the effects of radiation on cells in culture." Try as I may, however, I can find no record of such publication in Pubmed or elsewhere. Until such time as Jones does publish in a peer-reviewed journal, providing sufficient detail to allow independent investigators to duplicate her findings, as evidence all you've offered is "Joie Jones says it works--isn't that enough?"

I doubt that any experiment with energy healing will ever convince you.

Marg, here you're wrong: positive results from several properly designed and controlled experiments, replicated by independent investigators, demonstrating energy healong was effective would convince me. In science you go where the data takes you, whether you want to or not. And truthfully it wouldn't be hard to design and complete a rigorous experiment. No one promoting 'energy' or 'pranic' healing, however, seems willing to go to the effort.

If you're honest you realize we all would be positively ecstatic if someone did prove energy healing works and detail how it could reliably be used to cure illnesses like cancers--the more effective tools we have on hand to address illness and suffering the better.

But no one to date has conducted such experiments and demonstrated efficacy, let alone had their results confirmed by independent researchers. The examples you've offer fall far short achieving this: Bengston says he has, but on examination it's find his experiments failed (control group and treatment group outcomes were indistinguishable); Jones says he has, but provides insufficient detail to even begin to assess his claim despite his 2006 promise that those details would soon be published in scientific literature ( not to mention teh fact that he has the strange habit of ignoring negative outcomes when drawing his conclusions).

So once again I have to ask--are Bengston and Jones really all you can offer (other than anecdotal accounts) to support the claim energy healing works?

I had intended to be rather silent today because I am recalling a very dark day that occured years ago when there was nothing I could do AT ALL to affect its outcome....today is also the real anniversary of the Crash of 2008. And I am watch the Middle East unravell on television...

Science is not an amulet that wards off uncertainty, fear, doubt and catastrophe... it is a means of limited understanding and limited control in a very uncertain universe: a matrix of unknowns, if you will, in which we attempt to ground ourselves despite fear.

All of us recognise limits in understanding and personal control. As an atheist, I don't believe that my own wishes, actions, intentions or needs can somehow influence an omnipotent force to tilt things in order to benefit me. Or even that there is a divine presence unless if we are speaking purely metaphorically about the majesty and grandeur of the galaxies and inner workings of atoms and cells.

I don't imagine that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology can be suspended by courting divine intervention or through expressing the intention to heal in *precisely* the right manner. I'm sure that religious people who are also sceptics ( and there are quite a few here at RI) don't expect their deity to waltz in and cancel natural law to suit their wishes, either.

I would imagine at most people at some time in their lives, it could be age 30 or 60 or later, realise that magic doesn't work and that we exist and survive purely by chance. Our choices can frequently affect our fate positively but eventually, they will not. Then we are gone like the mist that clears away in the sunlight.

A metaphor from an Anglo-Saxon poet:
in a dark, raging storm at night, a bird flies into an inn that is filled with people- talking, eating and drinking, bursting with life-as they enjoy their warm shelter; then the bird flies back out into the darkness, never to be seen again.

We are that bird and the inn is our very limited life. We shouldn't squander what we have.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Sep 2012 #permalink

It means they omitted the experiments where pranic healing failed to extendcell survival when they crunched the numbers.

Nah, I meant the bit about the gamma shielding that followed.

I feel like sharing a link from one of my blogfathers: "How do you prove photography to a blind man?"

To me, Marg's "color argument" says more about a lack of imagination and obliviousness to the implications of discovery than it acts as a meaningful analogy. We know of no organism that can see radio signals, and yet we've scientifically proven that they exist with such a high degree of confidence we take the concept for granted.

It's also a thought-stopping cliche, a way to feel superior, and a way to falsely treat science as if it were limited, like in fantasy shows where magic is invisible to "sciency" gadgets. Science is an inclusive method of developing reliable, testable explanations from available information. Science is not a tricorder with a predetermined standard set of sensors.

By Bronze Dog (not verified) on 14 Sep 2012 #permalink

No one promoting ‘energy’ or ‘pranic’ healing, however, seems willing to go to the effort.

Or at least, if they try, they don't then report on the fact that said experiment completely failed to support their position.

@All
Jones said only 88% of the experiments succeeded; 12% failed. And it was completely an on/off proposition, no in-betweens. So I don't know where people got the idea that he did not report his failed experiments. Also, for most his experiments he did not associate with Yuriy Kronn and his machinery but used pranic healers. All this is explained in the various links that have appeared so far on this tread. After he got clear results in 400-odd experiments using pranic healers, he started doing variations. The strangeness of the limbs he went out on does negate the first 400 or so experiments that worked.

I got the clear sense from DW that she would believe in the existence of energy healing if she could do it herself. Newflash: any one of you could do it. Most likely not to the extent of healing cancer, but certainly well enough to help people with minor things like wound healing. But not one of you could do it with your current mindset. You are so bound up with it being magic or bound up with divine intervention that you could not allow it to be a natural phenomenon. I went into reiki as a total skeptic, not believing anything would happen. Something did happen, and it scared the living daylights out of me. It took years to accept that it was something real. I don't believe in an elite of sensitives; I believe what James Oschman says that this is something that we all have that we just haven't allowed to be. I've taught many people to feel energy. It's a simple enough proposition; you just have to get out of your head into your body, and your connection with the earth. If you fail, it's because you haven't been able to get out of your head. Most of you would probably have a really hard time with it, most brainiacs do. But it's worth trying.

That should be "does not negate". Or a question, as in "Does the strangeness of the limbs he went out on later negate the first 400-odd experiments?"

@ Marg:

Not exactly what I said: I said that I might believe IF the experiment- unconfounded/ controlled- could be replicated by sceptics - even me- the operative word is 'replication" and PLURALITY ( several times) by *sceptics*- i.e. not followers. Doesn't need to involve ME. I wouldn't expect this to happen because for the results to occur a suspension of a few laws of physics et al would be involved. I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

I believe that others might respond to the rest of your comment... I think it's about time I depart to the land of myth, magic and poetry ( REM sleep) I hope.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Sep 2012 #permalink

@DW
When you say skeptics replicating the experiments, do you mean skeptics running the experiments or doing the healing? Because, with all due respect to Dr. Bengston, I doubt that the latter would work.

Jones said only 88% of the experiments succeeded; 12% failed. And it was completely an on/off proposition, no in-betweens.

This is either wrong or frankly dishonest. He excluded from his table presentation of the results total failures. If it were a "on/off proposition," there would have been nothing to report other than a cartoon thumbs-up sign.

So I don’t know where people got the idea that he did not report his failed experiments.

He mentioned them in passing after eliding them from the money table. I would further idly note that he seems to churn out identical prose again and again with nothing changed (including the "a positive results" typo) but the number of "experiments."

Oh, no, it just occurred to me that he doesn't even define "survival rate." How was this measured, Marg?

(To be a bit more specific, I was wondering yesterday why Jones was using this 5 × 2 design. If the whole plates are tallied as simply "healed" or "dud," I haven't seen Jones state it, although it might explain why he keeps repeating the exercise.)

@Marg

I got the clear sense from DW that she would believe in the existence of energy healing if she could do it herself. Newflash: any one of you could do it.

This sounds oddly like the 'people only use 10% of their brains' bullshit.

Tell ya what Marg - I am currently suffering from a chronic asthma problem. Teach me how to cure it with just positive thoughts and I *might* be convinced. (With one clause and that is that I don't have to pay to access your supersecret techniques - can't afford such things at the moment)

If you fail, it’s because you haven’t been able to get out of your head. Most of you would probably have a really hard time with it, most brainiacs do. But it’s worth trying.

Ah, I see. If you fail, it's your fault not mine. Perfect out for whenever it doesn't work.

No wonder I haven't cured myself of asthma yet - I'm just not trying hard enough. Evidently I just *want* to be gasping for air...

You really are no different than any other alt-med crank.

When you say skeptics replicating the experiments, do you mean skeptics running the experiments or doing the healing? Because, with all due respect to Dr. Bengston, I doubt that the latter would work.

Now we get to cross off the 'skeptic negative thoughts prevent it from working' canard.

Marg,

Newflash: any one of you could do it. [...] But not one of you could do it with your current mindset.

I experimented with energy healing when I was in my teens and twenties and I had some remarkable results. Then I got interested in hypnosis, and had remarkable results with that too. In fact I found that there was nothing that I could do with energy healing that I couldn't do with hypnosis. My conclusions were that humans are very suggestible, that if you sit with a person paying them attention for several minutes, they will feel better and that many apparently physical ailments have a significant psychological component*. I never found anything that convinced me that there is any unknown energy involved.

Incidentally healers often use hypnotic language, for example I think it was Judith who stated here that she just tells the patient, "let's see what happens", which contains a hidden presupposition that something will happen. The whole situation of healer/patient sets up a context within which a person can make psychological changes. Sometimes a person has physically recovered from an illness but hasn't made the psychological transition to wellness, and a ritual like energy healing can provide an opportunity to make that transition. There is more to illness and wellness than medical and biological phenomena, there are important cultural and individual elements as well. I could go on, reaching back into my medical anthropology classes, but I'm sure you get my drift. I don't think anyone here is denying that these things happen, but it is a major error to confuse these kinds of phenomena with the effects of an objective, measurable energy, whether composed of dark matter or anything else.

Have you ever successfully treated an illness that is not self-limiting (i.e. does not usually or often go away on its own if left alone), does not have a variable course (comes and goes, with exacerbations and remissions), or that does not have a large psychological component (e.g. painful disorders, anxiety, depression, insomnia)?

What is the most remarkable result of energy healing that you have ever seen that could not be explained by coincidence, regression to the mean (people seek help when their condition is at its worst) or the natural course of the illness?

* I think I have related here before that I once experimented with self-hypnosis and, to my utter astonishment, cured myself of a cat allergy I had had for over a decade. Before that single session if I was in the same room as a cat I would start sneezing, my eyes would redden and water etc.. Immediately after my self-hypnosis session I not only entered a room with two cats in it, but I stroked one and deliberately rubbed my eyes which, when I occasionally did this accidentally, would normally make me very miserable indeed. Nothing happened. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

That was 25 years ago and I am still not allergic to cats, though I do have a slight reaction on a skin test. I suspect that I developed the allergy as a child when I was terrified of my grandmother, who had a cat. By starting to sneeze when we visited I had a perfect excuse to go out into her large and beautiful garden which I loved to explore. Stick + carrot + cat = cat allergy? I'm not suggesting that all allergies are psychological, but there have been experiments in which Pavlovian conditioning has been used to induce IgE release from stimuli like a bell (are you salivating by any chance?).

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 15 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Marg:

I would have sceptics conduct the experiment ( although if controls were adequate, it shouldn't make any difference)...HOWEVER you mention an important variable: whether the 'healer" believes or not; we could have a comparison of those who believe vs those who don't. THEN we could see if THAT had an effect as well. I think that they would PREDICT different results - that doesn't mean that there would BE different results.

Krebiozen discusses the idea that we can persuade ourselves of many things: *Persuasion and Healing* used to be on every student's reading list in the late 1970s and later.
I happened to have studied with a prof who
reviewed studies about whether hypnosis is real or not: long story short, she concluded that it's not any specialised state or condition, it is a strong case of suggestion/ persuasion. I think it's not too different from making a decision, e.g. to quit smoking, to diet, etc., then following that through -with constant internal verbal cues and self-direction- BUT it may carry the added persuasive weight that this is a tried-and- true method that links with the mysterious unconscious self that REALLY controls things - or suchlike.

I once took a formidable comprehensive exam that required detailed knowledge of experimental psychology ( perception, cognition, developmental, aging etc) as well as theoretical issues, over the past 100 years or so, which obviously included thousands of studies ( experimenters' names, date, conditions, importance, conclusions) which is a lot of material. I included a sort of self-hypnosis even though I didn't really believe in it because of things I DO know: putting yourself in a confident position and dealing with stress can do wonders. And it did.

People are affected by symbolic actions they take: everyday magic. Athletes have 'lucky' socks or underwear. We behave in ways to limit stress and allow ourselves to focus on the task at hand. If I wear certain clothes, I feel better and probably behave differently. Actions like these can harness powerful emotions associated with them so that they do 'our will" or at least, don't 'do us in'. Use your enthusiasm to push you on while curtailing the fear that inhibits you from doing what you'd desire.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Sep 2012 #permalink

This Bengston chap got a free advert in the Toronto Star a while ago.

Here is the genesis of his ability. He was lounging pool side with a window cleaner, staring at clouds. The window washer began making the clouds appear in any shape he put his mind to.

Naturally, this lead to his curing Bengston's chronic back pain and from there to teaching the ability to Bengston and logically, curing cancer.

That this happened in the early '70s may have some bearing on the ideas...

By al kimeea (not verified) on 15 Sep 2012 #permalink

When you say skeptics replicating the experiments, do you mean skeptics running the experiments or doing the healing? Because, with all due respect to Dr. Bengston, I doubt that the latter would work.

This has been done. The use of "skeptical healers" didn't diminish the effect, if you catch my drift.

Newflash: any one of you could do it. Most likely not to the extent of healing cancer, but certainly well enough to help people with minor things like wound healing.

Why can't Bengston heal warts, again?

Denice,

I happened to have studied with a prof who reviewed studies about whether hypnosis is real or not: long story short, she concluded that it’s not any specialised state or condition, it is a strong case of suggestion/ persuasion.

If you (as the hypnotist) behave as if it's a special state or condition, most people will also behave as if it is. In fact whatever model you adopt regarding the human mind seems to work pretty well, even completely contradictory ones. In other words, as your mentor said, it seems to be based on suggestion/persuasion. As many grifters know, it's amazing what you can get away with if you have enough chutzpah. Also, I have been reading about the power of conformity. I'm sure a lot of these factors are at work in CAM, antivaccine beliefs, and many other phenomena often discussed here.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 15 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Krebiozen:

Sure. Although I don't believe in magic, I do have several pairs of "magical" earrings that liberate my arcane inner powers appropriately to the task at hand- garnet works well for improving my tennis game and black pearl helps my general mysteriosity rating- I have the latter on now.

OMFG! I sound Ayurvedic.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen @DW
I think it needs to be made clear that no one can heal anyone else: that all healing is self-healing. All the so-called healer does is help set up parameters that facilitate self-healing.

@Krebiozen
It also needs to be made clear that so-called energy healing does not need to involve hand-waving. You can just sit with the person and healing can happen. Bill Bengston speaks of a retired oncologist who has switched into energy healing and does just that, and says that she now feels she is more useful.

So if you are an adept healer, as you say you were, it doesn't matter what you do. Handwaving, hypnosis, sitting with someone, it's all good; it all facilitates.

People now go to the doctor and effectively say, give me one of your magic pills and heal me. They believe that healing comes from outside. But the doctor does nothing different: he or she too tries to create the right conditions for the body to heal itself.

As to it all being psychological, aren't mind and body interconnected?

@al kimeea
He didn't change the shapes of clouds. He dissolved them.

@flip
It's not positive thinking.

@Marg - what a second, you're saying now that this is "facilitating" the healing? How does that jive with the mice experiment, when the mice would have no idea they were injected with cancer & no idea that they would be "healed?"

Now you're really somewhere in the twilight zone & can't even keep your stories straight.....

All the so-called healer does is help set up parameters that facilitate self-healing.

Sure thing, Marg. Perhaps you'd like to enumerate these "parameters." Or, I dunno, state whether you think "parameters" means "rules," which means "rules of the universe," which the "healer" has special access to the design and inventory of, because this is Really Special Sh*t for Really Special People to dispense to the Great Unwashed.

I would also like to inquire about just what on G-d's green you think the utility of attempting to draw this distinction is:

He didn’t change the shapes of clouds. He dissolved them.

Are clouds made of cancer?

@Marg

It’s not positive thinking.

Then tell me what it *is*. I mean, if negative skeptical minds prevent the healing from taking place (as you seemed to imply above by saying that none of us could do it because we're too close-minded), then it must help to be positive... right? You just said:

that all healing is self-healing. All the so-called healer does is help set up parameters that facilitate self-healing.

Can someone self-heal if they're thinking negative thoughts?

And then you say this:

Handwaving, hypnosis, sitting with someone, it’s all good; it all facilitates.

And yet, positive thinking has nothing to do with it?

What are these 'parameters' - tell me how, do I tap into this self-healing thing?

Let me guess: so long as you believe it works, it does.... because if the method (hypnosis, sitting, etc) doesn't matter, then the only thing that *does* matter is that you believe it works.

Yeah, that's positive thinking at work dearie.

@Narad
Read the read. Someone suggested that the man Bengston met changed the shapes of clouds. He didn't. He supposedly dissolved them.

@Lawrence
The "parameters" need not be psychological.

Once again I have to come to conclusion that you lot, aside from @DW and @Antaeus Feldspar, are rather dense, or at the very least suffering from tunnel vision.

@whoever it was that asked this, yes there are other experiments, but since they were done with qigong healer in China, I doubt that anyone here will be swayed by them.

There is also this;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10394674

Have fun.

You so don't get it.

Or rather "read the tread" and "qigong healers", plural. I'm using a netbook with a miniature keyboard and not much of screen.

Clouds don't dissolve. They evaporate or precipitate.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 15 Sep 2012 #permalink

Once again I have to come to conclusion....

You don't "come to conclusions," Marg, you haul notions around, freely label them with Wet-Pruf and a Sharpie, and thrash around interminably should they not be immediately accepted for delivery by parties who did not place an order for a colander of either watery or semisolid ideation in the first place.

@Marg

We're dense, or you're just bad at writing clear and precise explanations of what you mean?

For instance: how hard is it to provide a definition of what is healed (ie. does it work on everything?), how it's healed (does one need a healer or can you simply 'tap into' this energy?), and how quickly it works?

If you've defined this somewhere in this comment thread, or somewhere else, I don't recall you doing it. You can either provide it (again) or point me to your definition.

I will also continue to note that you refuse to actually respond to my comments - you just add throwaway lines with no value whatsoever. An easy way to fix this is to answer my questions. If it's not positive thinking, what is it? Can you self-heal when you're thinking negative thoughts? How do I tap into this self-healing? (I'd love to stop taking my prescribed inhaler every day)

I usually leave the paper-deconstruction to others who understand the methodologies so much better than I. However, I read the results of Marg's latest linkage and saw this in the results:

Gamma radiation decreased in 100% of subjects during therapy sessions at every body site tested, regardless of which therapist performed the treatment.

That makes me suspicious of how well the experiment was designed. Who gets 100% for all outcomes on all test subjects no matter who performs the 'healing'? That seems very unlikely to me.

Another thing about this study...

The detection rate at 4 anatomical locations in space relative to each subject's body was measured using an Nal(Tl) gamma radiation detector operated in integral count mode.

Does that mean what I think it means? What did they actually measure?

Gamma radiation decreased in 100% of subjects

These seemingly random linkages between the ELF and gamma, etc., spectral ranges make me wonder if there was actually a bit more than was said in Marg's "red" expedition.

Sorry @flip, I did not mean to ignore your queries.

The oldest form of "energy healing" is qigong, from China. It comes from daoist longevity practices. Traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture are related to qigong but it is believed that qigong came first.

It consists of a series of exercises which are like tai chi but much simpler and are meant to promote the movement of energy within the body, and to take in energy from the environment. There are many schools of qigong. Yes, one can heal oneself through qigong, and one can also receive external qigong from a designated qigong healer.

Healing is usually not quick. One does the exercises and at first nothing happens. But then one day suddenly you notice that your tennis elbow or knee pain or sciatica is gone, and you can't remember when it disappeared.

The point of the exercises is overall health. They are akin to a moving meditation. The meditation is meant to move you from your head into your body; to calm the agitation of the mind, which is seen as a source of disease. It takes practice and it takes time. It helps to have a good teacher. Kenneth Cohen wrote a good book on qigong; he also has a video. Chunyi Lin's Spring Forest Qigong videos on Youtube are also good (and free).

Someone in the tread above made disparaging comments about qigong, saying that it just separated him or her from his or her money. I can't say I had the same sort of experience with it. Maybe I had a better teacher.

I think other forms of energy healing are related to qigong, though not necessarily the same. You could try therapeutic touch or reiki. I would say that from an energy healing perspective asthma would be considered an agitation in the lungs. In Chinese medicine the lungs relate to grief. As an energy healer I would treat the lungs to calm them, but might also look for the source of the grief. If you want to read a good book on Chinese medicine, and how the emotions relate to illness from their perspective, you could read "The web without a weaver". I was fascinated to read that a good practitioner of the craft was expected to be able to diagnose just from seeing/hearing the patient.

I relate energy healing to meditation. When I treat people I go into a meditative state. In that state I become very sensitive. I've learned that if a question pops into my head, I should ask it. Or if I have an urge to put my hand somewhere, I should. I can usually tell where the pain is. I can also usually tell when it has stopped hurting. The feeling of it changes. It feels like something has let go, or it goes from feeling hot to cool.

Someone above asked me about healings that I could be sure were not psychological. I find it's hard to separate mind and body. I had one amazing case where a woman who had severe shoulder and upper back pain for twenty-odd years was suddenly pain free -- and has remained pain free ever since. That was interesting because not too long before an osteopath friend of mine had told me about someone he treated who had had shoulder and upper back pain as a result of adhesions from a hysterectomy. So in this case it came to me to ask the woman if she too had had one -- and it turned out that she did. Everyone else she had seen treated her back and shoulder -- I treated mostly her abdomen. I asked questions as they came to me and she answered them as the answers came to her. And something worked. She left pain free and remained pain free, and it only took that one treatment.

I hope this is useful. And I'm sure everyone will jump all over it.

@Marg

Someone in the tread above made disparaging comments about qigong, saying that it just separated him or her from his or her money. I can’t say I had the same sort of experience with it. Maybe I had a better teacher.

Yeah that was me. Someone wasn't paying attention...

I also made a point of mentioning that the teachers were masters, taught by *the* Chinese master of this particular style. Either they got their teaching out of whack, or the original master wasn't all that great to begin with. I'll also note (I didn't before) that outside of me and one other person, no other students were there despite weekly sessions. I attended for about 6 months, so I wouldn't have called them raging successes at either promotion or healing.

I'll also make a point of stating (again, I didn't before) that I did read up on qigong at the time, so even if it were bad teachers, then it'd also have to be purchasing bad books as well.... And because you mentioned his name, I went and looked up Kenneth Cohen: it turns out that his book 'The Way of Qigong' is the very book I bought first. I studied it quite intensely... I believe it's still lying about somewhere in the house.

Distilled qigong is a hand-wavey allusion to a magical mystical force where "bad" energy is excised and "good" energy is inhaled. Nobody seems to be able to measure these magical mystical forces, despite the fact we seem to be able to measure the gravitational effects of planets on stars millions of light years away.

And interestingly, in a country where qigong originated, it seems that most of its citizens have turned away from it and used "Western" medicine instead. I suppose that's some sort of conspiracy... or as I see it, they used what works better.

Marg: I'm going to save you some trouble. Don't bother replying to me unless it's with citations. I tried qigong because I was stupid enough to fall for the "different ways of knowing" fallacy (aka East vs West medicine) and it was only after learning more about how science works that I came to see it as a ridiculous notion. Yes, this is one area where I'll admit I have a bias and I'm not likely to be convinced - it would take a HUGE HUGE HUGE amount of evidence for me to think that qigong or "energy healing" works.

I can see now why you think it's not positive healing because you genuinely think there's some sort of weird force out there, but frankly, I don't see it as anything other than that. There is no evidence of these forces, nor of this mystical 'life force' that qigong appeals to, and so all you're doing is doing some exercises in the vain hope that they do something. Even assuming that there *is* some energy force, I have no idea why it would exist in the context of what else we know. The only way to make it fit (and here you're assuming a conclusion before you have any data of any measurable effect on anything) is to assume it's a vibrational thing: in which case you'd also have to invent some reason as to why things that vibrate or are 'attuned' to the force heal... In order to do that, you'd pretty much have to assume that the existence of life is not only inevitable, but that the universe was invented purely to satisfy life's needs... Which gets back to special snowflakes and positive thinking.

In Chinese medicine the lungs relate to grief. As an energy healer I would treat the lungs to calm them, but might also look for the source of the grief.

Yep, there it is. See, I can agree that psychological issues affect the body. So why is energy healing better than say, going to a psychologist? Or talking with a friend? Or perhaps, making lifestyle changes? Or perhaps, just dealing with the grief as one might do after a death in the family?

As someone who's probably not read my previous comments on this site, you'd realise just why I'm harping on about positive thinking so much. It's because I suffer from depression. You suggesting that my health is related to my emotions is about as insightful as a child saying they're hungry. If energy healing or positive thinking or whatever the *f* this magical mystical stuff is worked, it'd have worked by now. I've had decades of trying.

But again, it turns out I'm just doing it wrong. Marg gets it to work, and I'm not, so it must be something I'm not/doing.

Where I'm going with all this positive thinking stuff, is that, ultimately, most alt med is just victim blaming. Because the person who is sick is just not doing X, or not doing enough of X, or doing Y at the same time, or mixing it with Z and Y, or doing too much of X, or just not being in the right mindset, or just .... "just".

So, I'm having asthma issues because of grief. This is nice to know.... except you're about 1 year too late. I already thought of psychosomatic issues. Interesting that remaining calm, removing stress or changing lifestyle habits has not succeeded in getting rid of the asthma. But I'm just doing it wrong I guess.

I relate energy healing to meditation. When I treat people I go into a meditative state. In that state I become very sensitive. I’ve learned that if a question pops into my head, I should ask it. Or if I have an urge to put my hand somewhere, I should. I can usually tell where the pain is. I can also usually tell when it has stopped hurting. The feeling of it changes. It feels like something has let go, or it goes from feeling hot to cool.

Wow gee, you've tapped into the ability to... think. Colour me unimpressed.

You didn't answer this:

Can you self-heal when you’re thinking negative thoughts?

PS. Don't think I didn't notice the argument from antiquity thrown in there. Or the fact that qigong has been made irrelevant thanks to people actually studying anatomy and figuring out that veins and blood have more to do with life than invisible channels of invisible energy. Pretty much every concept of 'traditional Chinese medicine' has gone by the wayside due to actual reliance on observational data and investigation.

And because you feel like we're jumping on you, here's something you can get all hot and bothered about:
quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html

I relate energy healing to meditation. When I treat people I go into a meditative state. In that state I become very sensitive. I’ve learned that if a question pops into my head, I should ask it. Or if I have an urge to put my hand somewhere, I should. I can usually tell where the pain is. I can also usually tell when it has stopped hurting. The feeling of it changes. It feels like something has let go, or it goes from feeling hot to cool.

This bears repeating, if only to add that plenty of actors experience this phenomenon too. It almost always occurs during improvisational classes or other acting workshops where they are taught to be 'attuned' to 'the moment'. I wonder if the universe is tapped into an almighty improv class? Or is it just possible that being aware of one's own body helps us understand what we're feeling?

Artists must be especially capable of self-healing, they spend so much time in touch with their own selves...

I went off to find some citations to back up my point about Chinese people not using traditional Chinese medicine anymore and got lost in google... but found an interesting discussion at csicop.org/SI/show/china_conference_1/

Apologies for the multiple posting, but it occurs to me I forgot to ask a very important question:

Why are the lungs associated with grief, and how do you know this?

@Marg - any thoughts on Emily Rosa and her two trials of Reiki Masters which showed they were only guessing (and poorly at that)?

According to another free advert in the Star, this time for acupuncture, in Chinese physiology, the liver processes gamma rays in the skull. Therefore needling there will relieve chronic lower back pain...

How is this known and justified? Why do people buy into this at all?

The author of the piece had no trouble swallowing that tripe, but balked at the acupuncturists reasoning behind the way they run their "practice".

Even more traditional - one big ward for treatment.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg,

I find it’s hard to separate mind and body.

You do appear to have difficulties in that area.

I noticed that 'energy healing' (and later hypnosis) was effective in some but not all conditions that were painful, such as lower back pain, migraines, headaches, joint pains, in the sense that people reported feeling better, often temporarily, sometimes for longer periods, occasionally permanently (as far as I could tell). I strongly suspect that the conditions that respond remarkably well to these modalities are psychosomatic in nature. For example I know a hypnotherapist who treated a woman (who I also know) who had had a throat constriction for several months that was making it difficult to swallow. She was scheduled for surgery but a single session of hypnosis relieved her symptoms completely. Was this some magical healing event? I very much doubt it, I think it is much more likely that the throat problem was psychosomatic, or possibly it resolved spontaneously and the hypnosis was a coincidence. I am very skeptical of your suggestion I was accidentally using energy healing while experimenting with hypnosis. BTW, if you can get hold of Derren Brown's 'Miracles For Sale' , it is well worth watching (you can find a streaming video online). He teaches a man all the tricks of faith healing (not energy healing, but there are marked similarities), and gets him to impersonate one on stage in Texas. The section where he goes out on the street and heals people is particularly interesting.

I also noticed that people would report feeling better in other conditions that you could objectively assess, but I never, ever saw anyone healed of anything that couldn't be expected to heal on its own. I don't think anyone claims that energy healing can grow back an amputated limb, reverse kidney or liver failure, or cure type 1 diabetes, for example. Parsimony suggests that this is because such therapies work, when they work at all, on a psychological level. Remember the recent study that found placebos reduced people's subjective assessment of the severity of their asthma symptoms, but had no effect at all on actual objective measures of lung function?

Or if I have an urge to put my hand somewhere, I should.

In my experience, such urges are best resisted, they can get you 2-5 years in jail in some jurisdictions ;-)

flip,

Why are the lungs associated with grief, and how do you know this?

If you look at TCM you find that the terminology is very confusing. When they talk about lungs, kidneys and liver, they don't necessarily mean the physical organs we are familiar with. Disturbances in kidney energy are associated with depression, for example, which has no basis in science-based medicine. I don't think kidney patients are particularly depressed, or that asthmatics suffer more with grief than anyone else.

In a similar vein, I once talked to a therapist who insisted that asthma was due to poor mother-child bonding, and that he could cure someone's asthma by treating their mother with hypnosis. So flip, blame your mother for your asthma ;-) BTW I get bouts of asthma that are firmly resistant to self-hypnosis and relaxation, though panicking during an attack is not recommended.

Regarding Qi Gong, I did Spring Forest Qi Gong every day for over two years, and though it was quite nice to simply stop and do some gentle movement and clear my mind for 20 minutes or so, I didn't notice any health benefits from it at all, so I gave it up.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

So if you are an adept healer, as you say you were, it doesn’t matter what you do. Handwaving, hypnosis, sitting with someone, it’s all good; it all facilitates.

So, logically, that means that under no possible circumstances could an outside observer look at what a healer is doing and say either "Yes, that healer is facilitating" or "No, that healer is not facilitating".

Which logically means that anyone who says "This patient got better, and that proves that the healer's facilitating was tremendously effective" has no basis for that claim. They have no idea whether the healer was facilitating or wasn't.

As we've tried to explain before, the danger of constructing a hypothesis so that it's unfalsifiable is that, even if it's the falsest thing in the world, you will never know.

People now go to the doctor and effectively say, give me one of your magic pills and heal me. They believe that healing comes from outside. But the doctor does nothing different: he or she too tries to create the right conditions for the body to heal itself.

This is a pretty cheap attempt to bring science-based medicine down to woo's level. The only people who ask a doctor for "magic pills" or who would accept "magic pills" from a doctor are the ones who would accept the same from a naturopath or herbalist or acupuncturist or faith healer. Everyone else is simply trusting the doctor to be a competent practitioner of science-based medicine. If I ask my doctor "Why is this particular medication the one you want me to take for my high blood pressure," he'll say "Because a high sodium level aggravates high blood pressure; this medication makes you urinate more frequently, which eliminates sodium from your body more quickly. Of course, sodium isn't the only substance that will get eliminated more quickly; that's why I want you to also take this supplement pill, which will put back a lot of the potassium you lose because of the diuretic. Of course, that's not all I want you to do; I want you to change your diet and stop eating so many high-sodium foods, and I want you to get more cardio exercise; that cardio will improve your circulation so that your blood flows more easily and reduces the high pressure that the blood is under." Does that sound like "magic" to you? 'Cos it doesn't to me.

Once again I have to come to conclusion that you lot, aside from @DW and @Antaeus Feldspar, are rather dense, or at the very least suffering from tunnel vision.

Oh, Marg, Marg, Marg. Who's the one suffering from tunnel vision here? No matter what evidence is presented to you, you can only see it as leading to your favored conclusion, that energy healing exists and is awesome. You cannot even describe to us hypothetical evidence that you would accept as casting doubt on that conclusion! You cite things that have no connection with energy healing as evidence for energy healing: "Science doesn't know what dark matter is, therefore energy healing is probably something else that's real even if science doesn't know it!" To be honest, I have trouble imagining how anyone could possibly have more tunnel vision on the subject of energy healing than you do.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

Interesting that we should wind up here:
about 20 years ago I worked for a non-profit that provided services for people diagnosed with a serious condition: amongst my tasks were interviewing and counselling clients and writing propaganda for the cause.

I had a great deal of stress and decided to try t'ai chi - which I thought might also provide a useful adjunct to counselling. So I studied the exercises and collected an awe-inspiring set of books over several years. I found that , like I already knew from my formal degree, if you get people to calm down, the situation usually improves measurably. Breathing exercises are useful for people who suffer a variety of physical problems and fear. MIld exercise often helps the sedentary or debilitated to feel more 'able' and thus, 'in control', which can't be a bad thing.( I also learned a more active style- Chen- for my own exercise). I never taught those I counselled any exercises but suggested using breathing/ listening to calming music to quiet themselves down and trying activities like walking and appreciating nature.

I didn't discover anything that I wasn't aware of in SB medicine or psychology- they cover relaxation and exercise, you know; recreational activities are studied in regard to youths and the aging population. Yoga (I also studied that years before) and t'ai chi/ chi gong also possess a glimmer of the 'mysterious East' - that is something that may be a useful distractor, taking you far from your daily woes . Thus, how would that be SO different from harmless escapism? Some read Tolkien or watch television/ film sci-fi opera. Or go see show of 19th century Orientalist artists. Watch the brooding sea at nightfall. Write morose poetry.*Chacun a son goute*.

In my own view, most alt med faculties are things we already know about: diet, exercise, rest, recreation, distraction, persuasion, cultivating a sense of agency or even community. If people feel less helpless, they behave differently and their actions might lead to solutions- or at least distract them for a while.

The problem happens when the sense of agency becomes unrestricted by the bounds of realism and assumes powers that do not exist. I hear the results of unfettered belief in the impossible frequently on internet radio alt med shows AND they give dangerous advice about avoiding SBM as well. Sometimes those two ideas present hand in hand as they issue from the same source.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

"You cite things that have no connection with energy healing as evidence for energy healing"

I see this quite often for any woo. Dogs hear real good, therefore psychics & naturopathy etc, are valid things. And there is no evidence for Einstein's relativity, none. So, acupuncture.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

@flip:

Anecdotes are not evidence, but a dozen Chinese healthcare professionals (mostly nurses, some physicians) on a State Department-sponsored tour were being escorted around our department two months ago when one of our staff asked them a question about traditional Chinese medicine and how it was integrated into public health in the People's Republic.

There were politely pitying smiles from the group as the interpreter explained that in China, the only people who still use traditional Chinese medicine are a) in remote and lower-income areas with no access to anything else or b) elderly.

I got the impression (confirmation bias may be playing a part here) that in their opinion, "traditional" medicine was for rubes and those who cling to the old ways for comfort.

Shay @ 1:07 pm -- That's because TCM is widely known to have been something invented by Mao out of equal parts folk tales and his own vivid imagination. He did it because even after the confiscation of the estates of the nobility, he decided that China's population was simply too big for real medicine to be made readily available to all without diverting non-trivial sums from Mao's military and economic expansion and modernization plans.

So, just as it's cheaper and easier (though not as efficacious) for most Americans to get a bottle of shark cartilage every month than get a knee or hip surgically replaced, Mao got billions of Chinese to buy into his own brand of woo rather than pay the big bucks to get enough real doctors trained and real hospitals built. (To be fair to Mao, having even fake doctors was more than what the Emperors before him did. )

By Phoenix Woman (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

@me

Wow gee, you’ve tapped into the ability to… think. Colour me unimpressed.

I just realised that I misread Marg's comment. I thought she was talking about when she tries to self-heal, not what she actually meant which was when she tries to heal others.

My apologies. Although most of my remark applies to some of it in regards to healing others and being 'in touch' with what they're saying. I'm good at cold reading too, and so are many mentalists, magicians and con artists. So I'm still not impressed, but the snark is over the top given the proper context of what Marg meant.

Anyway, as I said: apologies for the confusion.

@Al Kimeea

@Marg – any thoughts on Emily Rosa and her two trials of Reiki Masters which showed they were only guessing (and poorly at that)?

My guess is she doesn't care. I posted about Rosa upthread and Marg never acknowledged it. Perhaps on purpose, because I repeatedly referred to the link I provided on Rosa's work.

@Krebiozen

I don’t think anyone claims that energy healing can grow back an amputated limb, reverse kidney or liver failure, or cure type 1 diabetes, for example.

Marg did state she could heal a wound. I am tempted to ask how long it would take to heal.

Also thanks for answering my question. While I was at csicop I refreshed my memory on a number of things about qi and saw that much of it is due to a pre-scientific unwillingness of those in charge to allow anatomical investigation - therefore Chinese people knew very little about how the body worked and how the organs were related to X malady. Various herbs are used in a 'like cures like' or 'tigers are dangerous, so have some for potency' type stuff. In other words, they had no idea what was going on and were just throwing whatever they could at the problem to see what worked; and presumably someone somewhere coincidentally felt better and voila a miracle cure was born. It's *exactly* the same pre-scientific views that were held in Western medicine. The only difference is that science (aka Western medicine) moved on, and TCM didn't. (We both know this, I'm saying it for the lurkers)

What I find interesting in these threads is that most of the time when I mention my asthma, no one asks me if I'm physically active and/or eating a well-balanced diet. These are two 'go to' responses from alt-medders when they talk about how SBM doesn't treat the whole person; and yet no alt-medder ever actually comes up with these replies to me (Pegamily got close but his shotgun scatter approach to causes kind of makes it redundant) . Marg did it above. She commented on how doctors give magic pills and don't worry about the 'inner'... but at no time has she mentioned to me anything about anything except some sort of vague grief. (And let's not forget that saying an adult is grieved is like saying that fear exists. It's about as precise and perceptive as astrology. Name me one person in the world who *isn't* worried about something)

As for blaming my mother... I think this is a cue for some of Denice's comments on psychoanalytics. ;)

And I too gave up qigong after seeing absolutely no benefits from it. As a meditative exercise, I find reading to be far more enjoyable and relaxing. For light exercise the movements became too ritualistic for me to have any actual interest in putting in the effort. As with Denice, once exploring it, I found qigong to be no more insightful than your average high school psych or arts class. In fact, most of what you learn in these 'tap into energy' exercises can also be learned in team-building exercises or on a wilderness retreat for meditation. It's basically just teaching you to pay attention to what your body is doing - no wonder anyone can learn it!

@Shay

This is also my impression. But being a skeptic, I wanted to find some actual data on how many people in Asia/China use traditional medicine still. Unfortunately my google fu not being great today, the most I could muster that wasn't from alt-med sites was csicop. -- If anyone has a link to a publication or some stats, let me know!

@Phoenix Woman

I wouldn't say it's 'widely known'. I didn't know it until I started listening to Skeptoid episodes. The only thing I ever heard about TCM is that it was different to "Western" medicine (the implication being West=bad meds with side effects), that it was more 'natural' or herbal, and that it's been used for thousands of years. That it had anything to do with Mao was very new to me only a few years ago. Oddly enough I actually studied the Cultural Revolution in a history class, and medicine was never discussed in the subject matter. This is one aspect that evidently needs to be talked about more by skeptics and SBM people. It may be widely known among skeptics, but I know from being around alt-med family members that it really isn't in the general knowledge of the public.

@Antaeus
Energy healing exists and is awesome :)

@Al
If you mean the study by the child Emily Rosa, what she tested was Therapeutic Touch not Reiki, and I am not in any way impressed by how she did it. If it showed the opposite of what it did, you would be all over it about how unscientific it was.

@Flip
I am sorry you were not helped by qigong. And, no, psychotherapy is not the same as talking to a friend. Yes, we may all carry grief, but we all carry grief differently. Ditto with all the other emotions.

I do recommend, again, The Web without a Weaver. I also recommend Claude Swanson's Life Force: The Scientific Basis. He cites many studies.

BTW the physical structures corresponding to acupuncture points have been found. I'll look for the link.

@Antaeus
Energy healing exists and is awesome [smiley]

Why does that seem funny to you? I find it sad when a grown person who could be sorting and weighing evidence reasonably instead thinks and acts as a fanatic. I find it particularly sad when that person does so knowingly. You certainly thought having "tunnel vision" was a bad thing that needed correction when you thought it was something we suffered from, but when I pointed out that you have a bigger case of tunnel vision than anyone else, all of a sudden it becomes just a joke, haha. You don't try to deny your tunnel vision, you just suddenly decide that it doesn't matter, if it's your vision that's tunnelled.

If you have right and reason on your side, Marg, why do you need the unfair advantage of a double standard as well?

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

If you mean the study by the child Emily Rosa, what she tested was Therapeutic Touch not Reiki, and I am not in any way impressed by how she did it.

Ah, what particular criticisms do you have?

If it showed the opposite of what it did, you would be all over it about how unscientific it was.

Effectively the same whine presented by David Hufford; it boils down to the ironic assertion that true believeroonies can guarantee positive studies before even performing them but none of those meanyhead journals would be interested.

@ flip:

I would never psychoanalyse YOU! You're fine! And I am in another area entirely
-btw- I think it's more enlightening to look at what skills and abilities a person has if you want to understand what makes him or her tick...
Someone asked me if a certain 50-ish guy had 'serious problems' and I answered- by process of elimination- by focusing on what he DID- he is highly skilled in an exacting business where he has had to work closely with people- for decades- therefore he's probably NOT mentally ill. Living independently is a big clue also.

Re the Mysterious East:

Amongst the woos, treatments or remedies that originate in places 'long ago' and/ or 'far away' carry premium mystique- AND probably it is easier to make up tall tales about them. There is a movement called "global herbalism" ( Michael Tierra) and MIke Adams promotes South American/ Rain Forest herbs. Indigenous people- of all continents- live 'closer to Nature' : we're told their ancient roots stretch back to the Edenic past, when all people lived long, healthy lives, in harmony with Nature without SBM. And the 'EAST' is the epitome of them all.

Earlier today I listened to PRN archives where the woo-in-charge rhapsodised about how the simple farm folk in Italy lived, working in the fields at advanced ages, eating pure unadulterated fruits and vegetables, filled with love for family- even their pet dogs and cats have doubled life spans. Sometimes the tale is set in Italy or the southern US or an island off Japan.. but it's always the same: vegetarianism, long life, hard work, simple values and purity prevail sans the unholy intervention of doctors and psychologists.

"Back to Nature' fans always exhibit a belief that our ancestors knew best and that we should emulate them. Modernity causes cancer, CVD, mental illness and autism. The world is contaminated by processed food and devilish drugs, the air and water is polluted. But a change is a-coming, they say.

Actually, my ancestors were predominately business people who lived in large cities that were/ are the international forefront of art, culture, education and finance. I don't mind emulating that. In fact, I usually DO.
Oh, my kind doesn't count.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

My ancestors were predominantly peasants and most of them died in their late 30's. I think the quote about their lives being "nasty, brutish and short" applies here.

Hmmm...went back and checked that quote and it's even more applicable. Hobbes was referring to "the natural state of mankind."

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

Greetings, RI friends. I've been coming to this thread for the past few days & find that you're doing great - you know who you are, Flip, Narad. Denice Walter, Shay, et al., so much that I can't add much more. DW's latest summary is sopt-on, of course, and the Hobbes quote, very good...

typo, that's "spot-on", DW.

@Marg

He didn’t change the shapes of clouds. He dissolved them.

This is like the rooster claiming that his crowing makes the sun rise in the morning. Dissolving is what cumulus clouds do when the thermal that created them quits. Thermals are rarely continuous - usually a bubble of hot air forms over an area that is slightly hotter than the surrounding area and then detaches. Colder air flows in to replace it, shutting off the source. As the air rises it cools due to adiabatic expansion and the water vapour condenses to form the cloud. The condensation releases energy to the air, causing a positive feedback as the air continues to rise.Once the thermal quits, the water droplets that make up the cloud begin to descend and vaporize as they fall into the warmer air below. This re-vaporization takes energy from the air causing it to cool and sink acceleration the process. A good glider pilot can easily recognize a cloud that is still "working" (well defined flat or slightly domed upwards bottom) bottom and one that has quit "working" and is beginning to dissipate (poorly defined bottom and possibly even virga - precipitation that does not reach the ground). The duration of this cycle tends to be fairly consistent over several cycles, so simple observation is all that is required to predict when a cloud is going to dissipate - it does not even require a knowledge of micro-meteorology.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

Here is the link promised link on acupuncture meridians

Oh, sweet Jesus. "It is likely that living matter is not in the ground state, but permanently electronically excited." What? There are some other issues, as well. This is basically mid-IR thermography, rather a let-down after Marg's inital promise that "the physical structures corresponding to acupuncture points have been found," not that simply ignoring previous assertions in favor of new ones hasn't already been established as Just the Way Things Work in Aura Land.

"Look at this. What is this?"

"It... it's your hand, Buckaroo."

"No, no, it's a... formula, it's an antidote of some kind. Whoever it was in that phony phone call from the President gave me information. It's some... some electrochemical message that allows me to see what they really are."

solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

For me that description will always be associated with Robert Muldoon, New Zealand's one-time Prime Minister.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

Sometimes the tale is set in Italy or the southern US or an island off Japan.. but it’s always the same: vegetarianism, long life, hard work, simple values and purity prevail sans the unholy intervention of doctors and psychologists.

The other recurring element is the absence of reliable record-keeping... remember, people, census details shorten life-spans.

I remember when the centenarians choice all lived in the Caucasus, and their longevity could be ascribed to the diet of fermented milk. Isn't that one due for a revival?

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 16 Sep 2012 #permalink

Bengston treats pancreatic, breast, bone, & rectal cancers, "cured gangrene" and helps diabetics reduce insulin dependence among a "wide variety of physical and psychological conditions".

The article is headlined: "Proof of a healing touch". It's all assertion in a Q&A form.

And his website has the standard Quack Miranda.

If the results of Emily Rosa's experiment were the opposite and I were to whine aboot it, I'd be the one in the wrong.

Her protocol could be improved, I think, so let us run it again with more professional energy healers of any stripe and see what happens. Results of 70% (maybe even higher, they are professionally trained after all) or better - consistently - would be very convincing.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 17 Sep 2012 #permalink

Thanks, Marg, for linking to a study that appears to show, that lighting something on fire, on the skin causes some nerves to light up. And this is news, how? As for meridians, you are going to need more than 'lights' to prove they exist. Anatomists have looked and looked, even histologically and so far have failed to find structures that would account for these lines. Next bit of evidence please.

@Marg

Energy healing exists and is awesome

Yes, you keep asserting this, but providing no valid evidence for it.

(By the way, even if meridians did exist, that doesn't prove that humans are capable of tapping into them, nor that meridians have anything to do with a healing energy or an energy. All it would mean is that a previously invisible set of tubes/channels exist in the human body)

If you mean the study by the child Emily Rosa, what she tested was Therapeutic Touch not Reiki, and I am not in any way impressed by how she did it. If it showed the opposite of what it did, you would be all over it about how unscientific it was.

Er yeah, theapeutic touch, reiki, same thing. Same hand-wavey vague "heal by thinking" crap.

And of course you're not impressed with it. It showed the effect your looking for doesn't exist. If it showed the opposite, and was a good study, it would be one data point in your favour and one study that would have us scratching our heads.

But you keep believing the strawmen Marg. Whatever helps you get through.

I am sorry you were not helped by qigong. And, no, psychotherapy is not the same as talking to a friend. Yes, we may all carry grief, but we all carry grief differently. Ditto with all the other emotions.

Er Marg - you missed it. I am asking you what the difference is between sitting with a healer and sitting with a psychologist. As for the rest, again, your insight is not at all perceptive.

Thank you once again for ignoring my question. That's two. Here's the third:

Can you self-heal when you’re thinking negative thoughts?

I note you completely ignored many of my other points and questions (again), but I'll harp on this one. If you answer it, I may just move on to another one. My next one might be about why actors are just as good at tapping into the moment as you are. Or why you seem to care nothing for Occam's razor except when it suits your purposes.

BTW the physical structures corresponding to acupuncture points have been found. I’ll look for the link.

Um, what now? The meridians have actually been found? These meridians that nobody can find *except* for TCM proponents? Yeah, I'd love to see your source.

... Now I've seen the source you posted. I read the abstract, then scrolled down to see the papers that cited this one. The authors seem to be saying that meridians are both a light source and an electrical charge? There was only an abstract, so I can't tell much about the paper. But I read the other two that cited it. They stated that the resulting "light" were artifacts and not identical to TCM meridians that are used. The photos given on the paper seem pretty convincing of a light artifact due to reflection of the light source on the body itself - something you can do easily at home at night with a camera that has a flash, a reflective surface to photograph, and a torch. (I know because I had this same issue last week trying to photograph something only lit by a torch) Without seeing the original paper, it's hard to make a comparison of their results vs the ones in response to it... but I'm not convinced they found anything unusual. (Er, nevermind, then I found Narad's link and saw the full paper... and I stand by what I said. Not convinced) I'll leave it to the others to pick apart in more detail.

Apparently my multiple postings yesterday got a bit much for Marg seeing as how her responses are not all that forthcoming. Still, at least I got her to describe her idea of energy healing.

@Denice

I thought you might start talking about Freud again. This psychic thing is hard to get right! ;)

Sometimes the tale is set in Italy or the southern US or an island off Japan.. but it’s always the same: vegetarianism, long life, hard work, simple values and purity prevail sans the unholy intervention of doctors and psychologists.

Japan gets mentioned a lot here in reference to old age. I think the media forgets that Japanese health care is pretty good and is mostly reliant on "Western" technologies and discoveries.

@THS

Thank you. :)
Nice to be included with the other regulars who are far, far better at this and more knowledgeable than me.

@Marg

I am very impressed with your descriptions of the anecdotal reports of the benefits of energy healing.

Energy is clearly a very powerful thing, but it may be a two-edged sword. All that higjhly energised qi flowing through meridians and cells and organs ... Who knows what harm it might do in the long term to the human biomass?

Hey, I assume the energy healing practitioners have done the studies looking at long term outcomes and possible adverse effects. They must have done surely, or how can they claim their treatment is harmless, or how can they know that the thyroid cancer my gran got 5 years after she had reiki for her arthitis are unconnected? Maybe acupuncture alters elecrtopotentials on cardiac myocytes, predisposing to arrythmias? Maybe therapeutic touch alters vitamin D metabolism, or potassium gating?

There will of course have been studies, you know, like the comprehensive phase I and II studies by bigpharma on new modalities - and I presume these will have documented all effects, good and bad, over a decent length of time in the proper, valid scientific manner, and have been published.

Can we see the results of some of these safety studies, Marg?
.........Please?

...What, ....you mean no-one has ever done formal safety studies....?

Oh dear.

@ THS: I thank you for your kind words. I am happy to provide whatever I can.

To clear up a few issues:
because the ancestors were business people - not born ultra posh but they certainly did 'clean up' spectacularly well- I didn't mean they they didn't get TB, 'Spanish flu', scarlet fever or malaria ( in warmer climes) which they DID and I only know REAL details about people who lived post 1880 ( just a few before). Recently a cousin told me that her father ( who was from Ireland) used to tell stories about young relations dying suddenly there. Now her brother and niece found that they needed pacemakers; she has a minor verson of the same problem- many relations got tested. SBM at work.

The Tales of the Elders get wilder with each telling - btw- it's not Japan in general but Okinawa- city residents are portrayed as living in squalor, stressed out, eating unnatural foods ( what? cellophane and plastic?), going to DOCTORS! Taking meds!
I studied psychology of aging that included a section about the exaggeration of age in cultures that revere elders and have poor records.

Fermented milk? Yoghurt! These days *les gens de woo* ( or is it 'wu', en francais?) talk about various fermented products and probiotics- sauerkraut, pickles, fermented soy products, kombucha ( oddly, no mention of wine, beer, gin et al/ they also hate bread and yeast). This trend is especially relevant for the anti-vax/ autism woo crowd 'healing' their kids with diets- parents @ TMR discuss the nonsense they feed children( food and ideas). Doesn't sound exactly pleasant- but WHAT that can be traced back to the seminal GI-ASD reserach of AJW is EVER pleasant?

About psychology and 'energy healing': SB therapy is not purely persuasion but includes strategies that enable people to change how they behave and develop skills- especially those which involve social interaction and communication. Therapy should be more like school than church.

And while I am not a Freudian, his ideas have cultural import even today :'people are animals not spirits' is his great contribution. Similarly James opened up the world of human experience to SB research. Both dudes followed in the wake of Darwin and regarded adaption and selection *vis a vis* humans.

I think that alt med has to hang on to spiritual/ soul-based formulae because it doesn't buy the material basis of psychological and health phenomena. There's nothing wrong with that- just don't call it 'science'. It's philosophy or religion.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Sep 2012 #permalink

Can we see the results of some of these safety studies, Marg?

Indeed, Marg has been conspicuously silent about the issue of Joie Jones running around trying to protect HeLa cells from radiation despite the question's being posed directly.

@Denice -- I was stationed on Okinawa for 3 years...lovely place and I had a nearly-idyllic life there (if you don't count the whole wearing a uniform and carrying a.45 thing). But I was 30 years younger, and single, and with no responsibilities other than seeing my platoon didn't get drunk and in fights every Saturday.

But I wouldn't exactly have called it a "natural life."

But Shay..

you espouse the profligate decadence characteristic of western colonialism as an exemplar of the marauding empire upon which the sun never sets ( not the OLD one, the NEW one)..
OBVIOUSLY neither appreciates the purity of indigenous wisdom but instead, tempts innocent natives who live in harmony with Nature to raise fish for sushi to be eaten by out-of-touch office workers in Sydney or culture black pearls to satisfy spoiled fashionistas....

Oh wow, I can almost produce an ancient cultures rant.. but with bigger words. Thank you for the inspiration!

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Sep 2012 #permalink

the marauding empire upon which the sun never sets ( not the OLD one, the NEW one).

What, we have a new sun now? Gene Wolfe was right!

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 17 Sep 2012 #permalink

Reluctant as I am to drag politics into this blog, I've noticed woo-sters (sorry, Bertie) yearn for ancient civilizations the way Republicans yearn for the 1950's.

Neither group would enjoy the reality very much, I'll bet.

@Militant Agnostic
Thank you for the interesting dissertation about clouds. Mayrick apparently did not pick his own but asked his audience to do it for him. Another chap who claimed to have the talent did likewise.

@All
I was having a chat today with someone I know, a woman who has two PhDs in science, one of them in biomedical engineering. During her working life she did quantities of experiments, but now that she is retired she has taken up other pursuits, including meditation and energy healing. I told her about our discussion to get her take on it.

She knows about Bengston's experiments and has been telling me for a long time that they are not up to scratch. She was less than impressed with young Rosa's efforts, which she also deemed to be not up to scratch. Apparently young Rosa and whoever put her up to doing the experiment completely misunderstood how Therapeutic Touch works. She says that all the studies she knows of have been too small, involving too few subjects, and that before anything can be proven, either pro or con, much larger studies will have to be done. And we both agreed that no one will likely come forward to fund them.

I told her about some of your criticism of energy healing and she asked me who you were. I said I thought you were scientists, and that some of you seemed quite learned and erudite. She asked me what kind of scientists you were, and I said that I didn't know, but it seemed to me that you were all rather Newtonian. She said she didn't know many real scientists who were still "Newtonian" and that a real scientist would have the curiosity to follow up interesting phenomena.

i told her our host was a surgeon and she said doctors liked to believe they were scientists, but most of them weren't. She said "most of what doctors do isn't really science based." I said "I know. Only about 25 per cent is." She said "oh no, that's much too high".

So I asked her if she thought energy healing was real, and she said it was about as real as anything else is. And I asked her if there was really anything to be gained by proving that energy healing worked. She thought there was; that we would be opening the door ever so slightly to a brand new form of knowledge and that we would all profit from trying to find out what it was and how it worked.

So there you have it.

I would be curious to know how many of you are actually scientists.

Wow, Marg reacts by yet again pulling the argument from authority card.

And the use of more anecdotes which have no bearing on the lack of/data on energy healing.

Three strikes and you're out Marg.

So there you have it.

I'll say. Of course, "it" seems to have actually been delivered some time ago.

Marg, where to start? I'm sure you are, in your circles, a warm, empathic human being with many excellent human qualities. So please understand that it is not an meant as an insult to strongly suggest that you are willfully, woefully ignorant about science in general, and about physics, chemistry, biology & medicine in particular. Please, it's not an insult - it's a statement of fact. Every human being is born ignorant and educated as one might be, will remain ignorant in areas where she/he has no valid experience or learned instruction.
I do take issue with the willful ignorance you've displayed, but many people have their sticking points. One would expect that someone who has posted as much as you have on this thread might also take the time to read and try to comprehend the responses to your posts and other comments on this particular thread. If you are curious about the total content of Respectful Insolence and about the backgrounds, interests, and credentials of the blogger (Orac, also an easily identifiable biomedical scientist) you might read samples from this blog over the years. You might also read the responses in the threads with some care. You will find ample reference to the backgrounds & interests of the scientists who contribute. (Hint- look for references to grant applications, to the NIH, to Principle Investigators, to outright declarations and explicit identifications of who they are.) You will also find that others who have no formal training in physics, chemistry, and medicine contribute, and that these people have diverse backgrounds. One of my favorites, for example, is a psychologist who also has an interest in actively tracking and understanding the various flavors of "alternative medicine", quackery and general woo. Others have no academic or professional background but are drawn to this site by their personal interests - some of these folks are notable for their ability to formulate a coherent argument and for their fine humor. For the record, explicitly, Orac is a physician and surgeon specializing in breast cancer and he also maintains an active research program in a biomedical lab. I've poked through this blog-site enough to learn a few things about the history of his research interests and I can assure you that he knows his science-medicine stuff. As for me, I'm not nearly as distinguished as many of the contributers to this blog. I'm a yoeman scientist; I've been around for a while and I'll never be a bigshot. I've worked in academic research labs and in biotech. My Ph.D. is in Molecular Biology from a respected Midwest cancer research center that was, when I was there, oriented toward fundamental biological mechanisms. My background is a bit diverse, with two degrees in Botany from earlier academic efforts; at least I know about ethno-botany and all those South American Rain Forest wonders that seem to be popping up in the "alternative" crowd. Semi-retired, I've lately been sitting in on research meetings of some labs at the local University & the only notable issue there is that these folks are actually using quantum mechanics to probe the structures and mechanisms of protein-DNA interactions. Believe me, real quantum mechanics applied to biology (at any level) has no resemblance to the muddle-headed nonsense that has been peddled to you by certain pompous fools. As to the question of whether I'm Orac's minion, well, no. But the significant differences I have with him regarding, for example, music and culture, are submerged by other interests.

"Apparently young Rosa and whoever put her up to doing the experiment completely misunderstood how Therapeutic Touch works"

I guess the 21 trained TT professionals do too as none of them - 7 were tested twice - mentioned this misunderstanding of their profession.

All these things claim to manipulate vitalistic energy. I presume it is the same energy - qi, prana, etc regardless of whether it is hands or needles or sugar pills.

In the case of hands, if the treatment doesn't involve touching then what is duff about Emily's "simple and elegant" study as described by other scientists who may also have 2 Plumbing heating & Drains.?

She flipped a coin to determine which of her hands to use or let the trained professionals pick which had the stronger energy, and used that one.

No need to touch, then no need to see the patient seems reasonable and it did to the 21 trained professional energy healers as well.

Unless they don't understand how it woiks.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

I have been doing a bit more reading about the origins of acupuncture (there's a good article here). It does seem clear that when 'needling' is mentioned in ancient texts at all it is in the contexts of bloodletting or lancing infections, and the practice had no similarity to modern acupuncture at all.

Should anyone be in any doubt about this, consider that a TCM practitioner will take the patient's pulse to decide which meridians are blocked or out of balance, and then stick needles in points on the meridians to solve the problem. As the article I linked to points out, taking the pulse is left over from the old bloodletting days. What does the flow of blood through blood vessels have to do with the flow of chi through the meridians? I think a brief perusal of pulse taking in TCM is enough to reveal its true nature.

Since Marg expressed an interest, I trained and qualified as a biomedical scientist specializing in clinical biochemistry in Cambridge UK, and have over 20 years experience. Despite the word 'scientist' appearing in my job title, I am not a research scientist, and don't have a PhD, although I have been involved in a fair amount of research over the years, and my name has appeared on a few published papers, though not as an author, and I have had a few letters published in medical journals and a couple of articles published in a popular science magazine.

I have also taken an interest in alternative medicine and claims of the paranormal over the years, and have suspended my disbelief to experiment in a number of these areas which resulted in an increase in my skepticism.

I took a few years out to study social anthropology (known as cultural anthropology in the US) as well, was awarded a grant to carry out medical anthropological fieldwork in Egypt, and worked briefly as a research anthropologist for the Institute of Psychiatry in London before returning to clinical laboratory work.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

@All
You stick your guns & I will stick to mine. I have a limited knowledge of science and you have a limited knowledge of energy healing. I doubt that either of us will convince the other. Yes, I have read your postings and your links; they haven't made a dent. I would like to see scientists follow up on energy healing as an interesting possibility, not as something to debunk. So long as it is something to debunk, you will get nowhere. And I personally don't need it to be validated: if it ever is, all that will happen is that the medical profession will take it over.

At any rate, I am now off until Sunday.

"stick _to_ your guns"

You have NO knowledge of science OR energy healing. You have repeatedly proven that.

Scientists HAVE followed up on energy healing - and repeatedly shown it to be complete bunk.

Have fun continuing to steal, cheat, lie, and defraud people. You are truly despicable.

@Marg

You stick your guns & I will stick to mine.

In other words, you have nothing to refute our comments with. Cue the flounce (again).

Yes, I have read your postings and your links; they haven’t made a dent.

Hmm, the person who accuses the skeptics of being entrenched is herself entrenched and unwilling to even bother arguing the points made. What a surprise!

So long as it is something to debunk, you will get nowhere.

You've got it backwards. You or other people have to prove it exists. All we're doing is holding to the principle of parsimony until good (extraordinary) evidence turns up. We're not debunking so much as explaining how other things could account for the effects you're seeing - that's how science works. First you get rid of all other possible explanations. What's left over is a possible new discovery of X.

And I personally don’t need it to be validated: if it ever is, all that will happen is that the medical profession will take it over.

In other words, you don't care about it being proven at all. So long as you believe it exists, that's fine for you. It'd be fine for most of us too (that you believe it, evidenced or not), except that you push this stuff on other people and pretend that it's scientific. You've basically just admitted that you have FAITH, and not science on your side.

Oh and Marg.... try reading

skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/skeptico-not-skeptiko.html

I think I've written about the energy being investigated by physicists not being the same thing as personal experience of 'energy': healers are talking about the latter.

I've heard an alt med 'expert' talk about "energy exchanges":
if you learn something from a teacher, are sexually attracted to someone or care for a child - "they are all energy exchanges". His beliefs about 'healing' run on a similar track: a person who is ill or has psychological problems has disturbed energy patterns; the healer whose energy is perfectly alligned 'adjusts' the bad vibes to match his own.
*Et voila!* All fixed.

What people experience as energy runs the gamut of all their emotions, sensations and instinctual feelings- all physically based in their own bodies. People feel better if they are around others especially if they experience stress ( see John Bowlby- studies of attachment, separation- cross-species).

Alt med ideas mix up energy ( physics) with experiential personal 'energy' ( psychology) and religious/ philosophical notions about the 'soul' or 'spirit' ( which is also derived from experiential forays into abstractions and emotional content) over the centuries and across the globe. People also have inklings about their own level of learning and knowledge ( metacognition)- probably this is also tossed into the stew.

What the so-called healer refers to as "energy exchanges", I can, by virtue of my various formal degrees ( ahem!), call other things: transmission of information via a role model are both examples of learning, sexuality is biologically based but carries distinct social implications and obviously, care of children involves emotional and instructional aspects. All of these things have been studied.

I find energy healing to be very naive: therapeutic touch might be better explained by phenomena that psychologists have studied for AGES: people are social and are comforted by touch. Believe me, it's been studied, as anyone who has lugged around huge volumes of Bowlby can tell you. The 'healer' sidesteps the entire issue of communication- both linguistic and non-verbal- which is a huge part of the three interactions he described. It is also how we exist in the world.

A researcher could tease apart what people REALLY mean when they describe their own feelings about personal energy- I have my own little take ( which probably plagarises Hume a bit)- I think that we imagine ourselves *en assemblage* of our specific skills, tendencies and abilities and how we experience them: we shift the arrangement ( or the set inclusion of WHICH ones) around to suit our present needs. In other words, we're not always the same person although we like to believe we are..

@ THS:
Flattery will get you everywhere. You might be interested to know that I started out in the arts with early recognition of ability in mathematics so I managed to get a great deal of natural science under my belt at a young age before I ever considered graduate work in the social sciences.
I have worked in other areas beside counselling.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

She said “most of what doctors do isn’t really science based.” I said “I know. Only about 25 per cent is.” She said “oh no, that’s much too high”.

Oh for fzzk sake. You, Marg, and your double-doctorate friend are both idiots. You are referring to the Zombie Fake Statistic That Will Not Die. Research it, why don't you, and you will see what a fool you are making of yourself.
By the way, your friend with the two (count 'em, two!) PhDs utterly wasted her time and energy obtaining them, based on her ability to think.

So long as it is something to debunk, you will get nowhere.

That may be the most concise statement of the central blind spot of pseudoscience I have ever seen. Science, done properly, sets out to debunk everything; the null hypothesis is king. It's well-worn, but the discovery of the role of H. Pylori in peptic ulcers is a pretty good example of this process. At first few people believed Warren and Marshall and only when several researchers had replicated their work was their hypothesis accepted.

In contrast, pseudoscience starts with a belief, and seizes upon any evidence, however poor or tenuous, that seems to support the idea, and ignores any evidence or prior plausibility to the contrary. Parsimony and Occams' Razor are the antithesis of pseudoscience.

Marg, when you return, you might find this short YouTube video about dowsing of interest. The dowser at the beginning states it well when he says, "How does dowsing work? That's the number one question, but nobody can answer you." Notice the presupposition that dowsing works? Scientifically speaking, the number one question is, "Does it work?" and I think the video answers that question. Substitute 'energy healing' for 'dowsing' and I think you would see much the same results in a double-blind test. The dowsers are convinced they can identify bottles of water hidden in boxes, but consistently fail to perform better than chance. Most interesting is the denial and the excuses they come up with after their failure. One of them even claimed that God was having a joke with them. No doubt the truth is that dowsing pixies are scared away by the nasty skeptics Drs. French and Dawkins, just as skeptics scare away the energy healing pixies.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

[Expletive deleted] Sorry about the link.
Skeptiko is run by a "a successful entrepreneur turned science podcaster". Interesting perhaps, but a little credulous for my liking.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

Denice,

A researcher could tease apart what people REALLY mean when they describe their own feelings about personal energy

Cross-cultural descriptions and expressions of mental health problems are also interesting. I know that South Asians often refer to sensations in their heart, such as "My heart is sinking", when describing what westerners would call depression. I worked as an anthropologist with a professor of psychiatry who had written papers on this, which assumed that we (westerners) are better educated and more sophisticated than those from other cultures when we describe our feelings in psychological terms. Fresh from my social anthropology degree I disagreed with him, as I think it's just different terminology for the same phenomena seen through different cultural filters. Perhaps in some ways describing emotions in somatic terms is more accurate. There's an interesting book on such differences called, wittily, 'Aliens and Alienists' (one of the authors was on the interview panel when I got that job).

One of my psychiatrist colleague's papers described an experiment with medical students who were asked to pretend that they were depressed, anxious or irritable, and took (IIRC DSM) diagnostic questionnaires for each of these conditions. Not surprisingly, those who were pretending they were depressed got high scores on the depression index, and low scores on the other two, and so on with the other tests. Conversely, when actual patients took the same tests, they got mixed results. A patient diagnosed as depressed would get a high depression score, but might get high anxiety and irritability scores as well. I would have concluded from this that diagnostic categories, or at least the diagnostic questionnaires, needed some work, but not my colleague concluded that the medical students were more sophisticated at describing their (imaginary) symptoms than the patients describing their (real) symptoms. I thought that was very interesting.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

I would like to see scientists follow up on energy healing as an interesting possibility, not as something to debunk.

How do you propose scientists follow up on energy healing, other than as they've already followed up on energy healing without finding any evidence of efficacy (i.e., by desigining and conducting properly controlled studies)?

A simple question--can energy healing effectively treat inflammation, or COPD?

@ Krebiozen:

Sure. Although there are cross-cultural differences there are individual differences as well, reflecting personality and verbal abilities . I knew someone who provoked an entire line of cross-cultural research about Piagetian skills/ stages I also knew someone who studied how far people spaced themselves physically from others. I always liked Cole and Scribner's book.

I just heard an amusing/ frightening ( not sure which) anecdote from my cousin who was told by the hand surgeon she consulted that she had a very high pain threshold because she manged to keep working when an old ligament injury- that had formed a cyst - somehow broke a bone, which now needed attention.. the break probably happeneda few years ago! She didn't think felt all that badly.. until now.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen

Re: Skeptiko, you should see the link I posted. It's an attempt to use someone else's reputation and name. Sceptico (with a 'c') is an actual skeptic, though his blog is rarely updated. Skeptiko (with a 'k') is a woomeister's attempt at trading on that reputation/name and muddling the waters with his more credulous posts.

I happened to be a reader of the 'c' Sceptico and knew about the two similar blogs. When I saw her post the link I knew immediately that there was something amiss... The 'k' Skeptiko has apparently done a good job of muddying his name with the other.

(Hmmm sounds familiar. Oh that's right: Meryl Dorey attempted to do the same a few months ago with her 'real Australian skeptic' blog)

Dentistry. Never mind about cancer for a bit. Dentistry is a sub-discipline of medical science. Anybody wave hands and restore teeth? Yes, yes, we know that a sugar-rich "western" diet greatly increases caries, etc. But don't try to dodge this one with a "natural diet" argument before you hand-wave away all those terrible abscesses found in human remains from various archeological digs or, for that matter, well-known dental issues in recent history. Dentistry. Surely there is woo-dentistry?

Pardon the typos above... some rude person was distracting me while I was trying to relate the amusing/ frightening ( ouch!) anecdote.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

@THS

I'm betting there is, and it would have to do with being pain free.

Denice,

I also knew someone who studied how far people spaced themselves physically from others.

Mexicans and Americans, Brits and Italians differ greatly in that regard. Hence the old cocktail party game of using a person's personal space comfort zone to subtly maneuver them around the room without them consciously even noticing... I once had a serious misunderstanding with an Egyptian I was talking to while sitting opposite me. He leaned over and put his hands on the top of my thighs and continued our conversation, which I was very uncomfortable with. I asked him politely to remove them, and he was surprised and a bit offended. I had interpreted it as a sexual advance, but I don't think it was ( though I had a lot of them in Egypt, but that's another story).

flip,

you should see the link I posted

I followed it, and take your point. It's deliberately deceptive. There are some interesting-sounding interviews there among the dross, with Randi, Chris French, Richard Wiseman, Steve Novella for example but I haven't sampled them yet.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Denice: Wow, someone worked her way through that very long single paragraph I wrote, the one that demonstrates that I can rant, too. My impression is that many of the folks who comment have wide-ranging experiences.

@ Denice: Wow, someone worked her way through that very long single paragraph I wrote, the one that demonstrates that I can rant, too. My impression is that many of the folks who comment have wide-ranging experiences.

Today I am grateful for modern dentistry.

A patient diagnosed as depressed would get a high depression score, but might get high anxiety and irritability scores as well. I would have concluded from this that diagnostic categories, or at least the diagnostic questionnaires, needed some work, but not my colleague concluded that the medical students were more sophisticated at describing their (imaginary) symptoms than the patients describing their (real) symptoms. I thought that was very interesting.

i find that interesting as well, in that, AFAIK, anxiety and irritability are very commonly seen in patients who are depressed. I find your colleague's interpretation to be oddly simplistic and patronizing.

Briefly back with excerpt from Bengston interview. Those of you who have misgivings about his his experiments really ought to get in touch with him.

Dr. William Bengston: ... Generically, belief scares me. Belief scares me and believers scare me. That sounds extreme but it actually is the case that believers scare me because they believe and they have the delusion that they have the truth. I don’t care what it is that they think they know or think they have the truth about. They just scare me because I don’t know anybody who has any truth. So you have in believers a tendency to act in defense of those beliefs.

So I, for example, have spoken to skeptical organizations. I’ve been invited by the such-and-such skeptic society and I usually begin a talk to a skeptic society by saying I’m probably the only skeptic in the room. That gets them all harrumphy. Then they fold their arms and legs and contort their faces and things. “No, we’re the skeptic society.”

“You’re not really skeptics. You’re believers. You already believe that the things I haven’t yet said are wrong.”

Alex Tsakiris: How do those talks go?

Dr. William Bengston: Well, they harrumph and harrumph and harrumph and again, they go into pretzel mode and contort themselves. And it’s a very interesting socio-psychological phenomenon because I suddenly present my data and so I have mice, I have many experiments in all sorts of things, many dozens and dozens of experiments in a variety of things in healing, and the experiments of experiments.

So the issue is have I done something wrong? In which case I’m absolutely interested in what I did wrong. If I haven’t done anything wrong and these are the results and it’s a reliable phenomenon, what’s your beef?

And so they’re there contorting and they can’t find a flaw in what I did. Sometimes there are oncologists in the audience and sometimes there’s physicians of various stripes and sometimes there’s biologists and nobody can find a flaw. I’m saying, “Hey, if you can find a flaw I would say ‘Thank you.’ If I screwed up, I didn’t know I screwed up. But if I did, show me how and I’ll make it better.”

So I present this stuff and they can’t find a hole in the stuff that I do. The interesting socio-psychological phenomenon is since this is a skeptic society (it’s really not, it’s a believer society) they have a certain amount of social pressure. They’re not allowed to go, “Wow.” They’re not allowed to convert because they have to defend their beliefs. They’re not skeptical; they’re believers.

So what happens at the end is I’m cleaning up or doing this or that and the hall will start to thin out and one by one they look around to see if it’s safe. They come up to me and they go, “That was great.” Then they run off because they can’t be seen speaking to the crazy guy.

Those of you who have misgivings about his his experiments really ought to get in touch with him.

What is this, the third time you've tried to pull this routine? No. Bengston didn't show up and start blabbering, you did.

@Marg

So, to support your claims, you produce Bengston's claimed experiences at skeptical gatherings? First off, that doesn't support any of your claims. Second, what reason do we have to believe his statements? Better to provide video or audio from one of those appearances.

Now, do you have any, y'know, actual data to support your claims re: energy healing?

(By the bye, I can't believe this thread is still going and Marg still hasn't supported her assertions.)

One might also wonder precisely what sort of sociologist begins a presentation by insulting the honor of the group he's addressing.

I would like to see scientists follow up on energy healing as an interesting possibility, not as something to debunk.

How could scientists possibly follow up on it, when you yourself have admitted it's not falsifiable?

There is a science-fiction story by the late Douglas Adams which involves a being called an Electric Monk, a humanoid robot whose programmed function is simply to believe, fervently, in whatever you instruct it to. It was employed by a race of aliens, which went extinct when one of them, instead of checking the safety of their vehicle, which might have resulted of a verdict of "not safe," simply told the Electric Monk to believe the vehicle was safe instead.

Marg says she wants scientists to follow up on energy healing; what she really means is she wants them to be Electric Monks, who simply tell her what she wants to hear. The last thing she actually wants is for scientists to follow up on energy healing with science, because they'd most likely come up with the same results they got the last 79,000 times they looked into it, namely, there's no good reason to think it exists.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

THS,

Surely there is woo-dentistry?

But of course.
There seems to be a disproportionate number of nutty dentists about too: Weston Price, Leonard G Horowitz, Orly Taitz, J.E. Bouquot, Hal Huggins... (look the unfamiliar ones up on Quackwatch if you're interested)

TBruce,

I find your colleague’s interpretation to be oddly simplistic and patronizing.

I suppose that attitude was of its time - I looked it up and found it was published in 1978, unless I misinterpreted it, but it seems just as I recalled. I worked with the good professor over a decade later, and he was a very nice chap. I don't think he had experienced a sea change, and his attitude was by no means unusual. I had just escaped from a bunch of smug post-modernists, so immediately running into the polar opposite was a bit disconcerting!

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

Dammit, I have a blind spot for missing close link tags. I must repeat my affirmation, "I will not post without closing link tags. I will not post..."

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

Dammit, I have a blind spot for missing close link tags.

The opening one isn't in the best shape, either (it's a link to this page).

Krebiozen,
It occurred to me before I logged in, OMG, I'd forgotten about all sorts of dental nonsense and I am happy to see you picked up on that. How could it have slipped my mind? At the very least, there's all that crap around filling amalgam, and I'm sure there's a lot more beyond all those big-hearted folds ready to replace all your fillings.

But a toothache is so intrusive, I wonder how much relief one would get from the civic-minded energy healer in the next county who's decided to address the Dental Problem. Oh, too, let's not get going around fluoridation-panic nonsense.

I think I'll check out the link you left me - thanks -

Sorry, I'm doing too many things at once - it should have been this page. It seems a link with just "" gets filled in with the current page URL.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

K: Wow, thanks for a good chuckle. It was the first link that took me to the tooth fairy. The second one (above) went to legit Pubmed abstract about psychiatry.
On to Quackwatch for more dentists. As I said before, there are some RI regulars here with a wicked sense of humor.

There seems to be a disproportionate number of nutty dentists about too: Weston Price, Leonard G Horowitz, Orly Taitz, J.E. Bouquot, Hal Huggins…

Among the lesser lights, Nancy Montgomery-Ware, Ed Kendrick, Elaine Brown, and John Hall.

@Marg, I salute your perseverance and thickness of skin, the willful ignorance is annoying because healthcare ain't cheap and people want this stuff covered

"I would like to see scientists follow up on energy healing as an interesting possibility, not as something to debunk. So long as it is something to debunk, you will get nowhere."

Interesting possibility or something to debunk is irrelevant. In her own words, Emily described her motivation for her wee study was to "see if they really could feel something."

Her results are damning. So she attempted to debunk energy healing and not examine it as an interesting possibility? Or is it because she studied the validity, the truthfulness, of the mechanism of energy healing; rather than assuming it works and torture some lab animals to verify it?

Why is what Emily Rosa did a debunking? Didn't your PhD'd friend explain why she(?) thought Emily's study was flawed? Sure only single blinded, but she flipped a coin or let the professional choose to balance for that.

As to how science works, IIRC, Robert Miliken attempted to debunk Einstein's ideas in the '30s. He did not consider them valid.

Miliken grudingly admitted Einstein was right based on his own results gathered over ten year period.

"They just scare me because I don’t know anybody who has any truth." - Bengston

But he and his mentor claim to be able to manipulate matter at a very great distance. They claim their ability allows them to truly heal gangrene frinstance.

And you don't care if it is ever validated and reject any honest attempts to do so because the results aren't what you're wishing for.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

Among the lesser lights, Nancy Montgomery-Ware, Ed Kendrick, Elaine Brown, and John Hall.

toothyologists?

By al kimeea (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

About the Bengston interview quoted above:

he asserts that the sceptics can't find ANYTHING wrong in his studies. Then ( the "socio-psychological phenomenon") they can't say "Wow!" and convert in public. However later, they come up to him individually and say how great his work is and then skulk away.

I don't really believe this: most of us here could probably think up a few criticisms at the drop of a hat. Perhaps some audience members don't speak up because they have sympathy for him. I'm sure that at least ONE person ( if they are sceptics) had at least ONE critique during at least ONE event.

Perhaps I've read too many stories about scientists employed by pharma confessing to witnessing malfeasance having to be "off the record" and doctors saying "Please don't quote me" after agreeing with alt med (as told by alt med advocates).

Science proceeds from debate and researchers 'battle' in the journals: I remember a tale about 2 researchers who taught at the same university ( in Canada, I think) who fought about memory for images in print for years but avoided each other at their place of employment.

Bengston's statements seem designed to impress his audience: he makes it sound as if he has the implicit support of
oncologists, physicians and biologists who are either too timid or subject to peer pressure to speak their minds. You'd think that someone might write him.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

Anteaus: Which story was that? I won't be able to sleep until I know.

Marg: That gets them all harrumphy. Then they fold their arms and legs and contort their faces and things. “No, we’re the skeptic society.”

Okay, I call bull. That's even more fact-free then all of the posts before it. I refuse to believe that a responsible adult would use the word 'harrumphy' in an interview. 'Contort their faces?' Can't he just say 'frowned?' And you're asking us to trust a guy who talks like a demented high school student?
There are not enough 'really?' gifs in the world to express my feelings right now.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 18 Sep 2012 #permalink

What, we're still rearranging electrons around Bengston - anything? There has been no credible logic, argument or evidence coming from Marg, only a determination to somehow have the last word. I've seen threads like this. Won't happen. Hey, how 'bout them (fill in local college football team)?

@PGP: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. To tell you the truth, there's still aspects I'm trying to figure out, twenty years after reading the book the first time.

@DW, THS: It comes back to the principle of charity. Unless Bengston is trying to claim that literally no skeptic ever who has confronted him has had a better refutation of his experiments than "we don't believe that, we're skeptics"* then he is deliberately hiding all the times his claims were really put to the test to brag instead about how handily he defeated the weakest opponents he ever encountered.

* And this is especially ridiculous considering that such a refutation would be "Hey, your experimental group and your control group had the same results; no matter what explanation you have for that, it still doesn't support the conclusion 'look what a huge difference the experimental intervention made!!'"

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 19 Sep 2012 #permalink

You say you'd like scientists to follow up on energy healing (presumably in some way other than how they've been following up on it for decades without finding evidence it works better than placebo's or faux treatment) but haven't said how they should follow up differently.

The most logical course for sicentists to 'follow up' with is to treat energy healing exactly as they do potential small molecule or biologic therapeutics--invsetigating it's use in standard, validated animal models such as they do for products developed to treat inflamation, asthma, COPD, etc. ? These models generate objective, numerical read-outs (% induced paw edema, eosinophil/basophil/mast cell counts in bronchial lavage, etc.)

Would you find this approach acceptable? If these models demonstrated that energy healing performed no better than negative controls, would that be sufficient to convince you it was ineffective?

(I suppose a more immediate question would be "Why haven't Bengston and other proponents of energy healing themselves followed up in this manner, by using validated models rather than messing around with poorly designed, uncontrolled experiments, 'imbuing' cotton balls with healing energy, etc.?")

Since you and Bengston seem to be on such good terms, perhaps you could suggest he stop messing around with mice, cages, magnetometers, etc., generating results that are of no value (i.e., where the treatment and control groups are indistinguishable) and contract with a reputable laborator(eg.g, Charles River, perhaps) to run a validated protocol.)

Anteaus: Okay, I thought I'd read that book. And yes, Marg is a living embodiment of an Electric Monk.
I wonder if someone could do a study to see if dentistry and cheerleading are co-related with gullibility or a lack of intelligence. I think some dentists do go into the profession to help people, but a lot seem to get shunted into the field because they can't reconcile certain truths of biology with their faith.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 19 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Politicalguineapig:
@ Antaeus:

Bengston's description has the ring of a set piece about it to me; often I've heard about the stodgy old sceptics/ scientists who are set in their ways/ faithful to their' religion.. you know the drill as well as I do.
The 'every'/'no one' meme sounds like the woo-meister who won "every SINGLE debate" he had with the Orthodoxy ( sic). And the young 'investigative reporter' who confounds every single vaccine advocate he stalks.... uh, *questions*- queries which that they can't answer AT ALL..

Words like "all, every, none" usually illustrate black-and-white thinking about a topic. Rhetorical hyperbole can be useful but in this case, it's ridiculous. I really doubt that events transpired as reported.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 19 Sep 2012 #permalink

PGP,

I think some dentists do go into the profession to help people, but a lot seem to get shunted into the field because they can’t reconcile certain truths of biology with their faith.

Nah, the mercury fumes send them bonkers ;-)

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 19 Sep 2012 #permalink

Nah, the mercury fumes send them bonkers

What do you mean, "I need to install a special ventilation system to continue administering NO?" This is an outrage! And no, under no circumstances am I going to take off the lead apron, so you can just stop staring at it right now, jackboots.

under no circumstances am I going to take off the lead apron

Wait, what, have the Freemasons turned Heavy Metal to appeal to the kids?

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 19 Sep 2012 #permalink

Krebozien: That explains a lot. Dentists are the mad hatters of today. I've also noticed a strong correlation between being dumb as a brick, cheerleading and creationism. I leave it to the commentariat to draw their own conclusions.

Herr Doktor Bimmler: Don't know about the Freemasons, but the internet insists that the Illuminati are into indie rock.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 19 Sep 2012 #permalink

The Freemasons are strictly into house music these days.
Trust me.

And Politicalguineapig:
the first rule of the Illuminati is that we don't talk about the Illuminati.
Capish?

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 19 Sep 2012 #permalink

I go away for one day and see that not only does Marg not stick the flounce - again - but also has posted yet more anecdotal data about her beloved Bengston.

And yet again posts nothing to rebut my points.

@flip - she did mention being off until Sunday, so maybe in a few days she'll avoid listening to your points again

It's interesting what people consider a rebuttal. Even lawyers can behave as Marg.

On a political site of the progressive bent, a poet contributor wrote an article that basically said "science, therefore indigenous people are under represented in the culture at large" while using the fevered ramblings of Charles Hoy Fort about the paranormal to support it. He uses a Fortean strawman about colours separating reality as a deepity I think, in a variation on the gaps argument "science doesn't know everything, therefore this thing has merit." Like TT, HT reiki...

I turn the conversation to acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy and psychics by asking if science doesn't know everything, does that give license to make shit up?

The lawyer shows up with "dogs hear real good, therefore woo" "arrogant to think we're all the same" "anecdotes put the lie to those who say bunk" "be open minded" - twice. The second time it was folded into the lie about there being no evidence for relativity, "Einstein was a pretty open minded guy".

Earlier he said we need the evidence of the scientific method to determine quackery.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 20 Sep 2012 #permalink

al kimeea,
It does seem a lot of 'rebuttals' by those whose logic has been shown to be faulty are in the form of, " ooh look, a squirrel!" BTW a great deal of "the fevered ramblings of Charles Hoy Fort" were very much tongue-in-cheek, I think, but some people have taken him a little too seriously. A lot of the Forteans I have encountered have been ruthless skeptics; others, not so much.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 20 Sep 2012 #permalink

Antaeus:

@PGP: Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency. To tell you the truth, there’s still aspects I’m trying to figure out, twenty years after reading the book the first time.,

One thing that helped me a great deal was the realization of how much of it was recycled from Adams' "Doctor Who" scripts. Although it's hard to find now, the VHS release of "Shada" was particularly illuminating, as "Dirk Gently" is mostly a reworking of that untransmitted (and incomplete) serial plus a bit from "City of Death". Professor Chronotis is a major character in both; he's a Time Lord, and his study moves around because it's actually a TARDIS. And the exploding spaceship in the distant past is, of course, the Jaggaroth spaceship that Scaroth failed to prevent exploding in "City of Death". The Electric Monk is probably the most interesting innovation in the book.

"Shada" is now being novelized (Adams had refused to allow any of his scripts to be novelized in his lifetime, but is no longer around to object), and an effort is being made to try to duplicate his style. I wonder how much will be borrowed back from "Dirk Gently"? ;-)

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 20 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Denise Walter

the first rule of the Illuminati is that we don’t talk about the Illuminati.
Capish?

But they make such nice candles!

Calli: I'll see if I can scare Shada up; it's gotta be on the tubes somewhere. It makes sense in an odd kind of way that Adams would've worked on Dr. Who. I'm surprised I haven't heard about that before now. Clearly, I do not have enough nerdy friends. (Or my friends are not nerdy enough.)
Thanks for the link, whenever it shows up.

D.W. and Todd: I'm laughing myself sick over here. Thankfully, I haven't had my afternoon tea yet, or you'd owe me a new keyboard.
I do have one question: if the Freemasons are responsible for house music, and the Illuminati are in rock, who the F was responsible for dub music? There's gotta be some secret evil organization behind that.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 20 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Politicalguineapig

The insectoids.

@ Marg:

While I am currently occupied but will return postehaste-
Orac's 'friend', the Doctor discusses that @ SBM and yours truely riffs off an alt meddler's reaction to Dr Ben @ the "Forced" thread here.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 26 Sep 2012 #permalink

So Marg finally returns and posts yet another comment that is designed to distract us from the fact that she has no rebuttals and no decent data.

And so, the world continues turning....

Oh, Marg. You shoulda stuck the flounce. Don't you ever get tired of humiliating yourself?

The fact that these firms have managed to circumvent the safeguards we have against deceptive results by simply doing multiple studies and selectively presenting only those which favored their products is not good. No one pretends it's good.

But you, you are still trying to argue that energy healing is better. Better, despite the fact that it doesn't even pass the elementary criterion for success, that the experimental groups outdo the controls.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? You're like the fat, wheezing couch potato who gets out of breath simply bending down to tie his running shoes, mocking the marathon runner who ran the whole twenty-six miles but didn't make a time good enough to get a medal.

Any simpleton can jeer. The question is not "can you jeer, and sneer, and be nasty?" but "do you have something to offer that's better?" And because the criterion for "better" is "less susceptible to error" rather than "gives a gullible woman a sense of superiority," the answer is no, you don't have anything better to offer.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 26 Sep 2012 #permalink

Todd W: Well played, sir! I would've guessed the Scientologists, but they're just not that cool. I'm personally rather baffled by the dub phenomenon, but each to their own.

By Politicalguineapig (not verified) on 26 Sep 2012 #permalink

I enjoyed reading a question for Dr Goldacre ( @ the Observer):

hot coffee asks-
Is clinical depression an illness invented ( with the aid of marketting) by the drugs (sic) companies? If not, when did science discover that "clinical depression" is caused by a "chemical imbalance" in the brain?....
(he continues in this vein for a while.... I won't)

I HAVE heard this before: like the woo-meister I describe on another thread, this fellow ( I assume) takes what BG says and inflates it to mean that SBM is fiction and drug companies 'invent' illnesses to market drugs to trusting patients. There is NO chemical imbalance. Anti-psychiatrists and woo-meisters like to tell their audiences that depression ( or SMI) is not caused by chemicals ( neurotransmitters actually) but rather it is a consequence of everyday life, a nutritional deficiency or a spiritual dilemma. Of course, you don't need PILLS for that! You need to straighten up and fly right! Eat correctly, be more spiritual!

I would say that this is like a trip back into the 19th century except that even then they believed that mental illess was a condition that was treated by medicine and doctors.

Alt med objections to SBM often betray black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking, e.g. the Nirvana fallacy - drugs/ vaccines are not perfect, have side effects and don't work 100% of the time THEREFORE
they're worthless crap.

Note that this scoffer denies that there is research about 'chemicals' being associated with depression; it is necessary for woo-sympathesisers to believe this because they don't believe in drugs and drugs are a chemical means of changing the situation that sufferers experience.

Notice that I say SUFFERERS.. because that is the issue at hand. People suffer and often aren't able to live how they would like because of mental ( and other) conditions: pharmaceuticals are developed in response to consumer demand as well as corporate game plans.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 26 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg-- how about some eye-opening stuff on energy healing...surely three days of frantic Googling must have gotten you something?

Nothing? Well, then.

@Denice

I HAVE heard this before: like the woo-meister I describe on another thread, this fellow ( I assume) takes what BG says and inflates it to mean that SBM is fiction and drug companies ‘invent’ illnesses to market drugs to trusting patients. There is NO chemical imbalance. Anti-psychiatrists and woo-meisters like to tell their audiences that depression ( or SMI) is not caused by chemicals ( neurotransmitters actually) but rather it is a consequence of everyday life, a nutritional deficiency or a spiritual dilemma. Of course, you don’t need PILLS for that! You need to straighten up and fly right! Eat correctly, be more spiritual!

I bet most people who come up with this crap have never heard of a mentally ill person who is below the age of puberty. Ie. that it's a social construct that is developed along the way, rather than something that can exist at any time for any person.

It's also partially to do with a misconception that what you (ie. normal person) feels is the extent of what someone else feels. It's projection of what one person can cope with onto another.

Note that this scoffer denies that there is research about ‘chemicals’ being associated with depression; it is necessary for woo-sympathesisers to believe this because they don’t believe in drugs and drugs are a chemical means of changing the situation that sufferers experience.

Chemicals exist *outside* the body, don't you get it? And the only way they can enter the body is if you ingest them... so it makes perfect sense if you forget that actually your own body is made up of chemicals.

Note that this scoffer denies that there is research about ‘chemicals’ being associated with depression;

If I understand the research correctly, the research linking neurotransmitters with depression is all of the form "These drugs were discovered through serendipity to treat depression in many people, and they as if they should affect the levels of a couple of the known neurotransmitters". There are logical flaws in the reasoning. No-one argues that ECT treats depression successfully in some people, therefore depression must be caused by a shortage of electricity. Then there are the drugs that were carefully *designed* to adjust neurotransmitters in controlled ways, which turned out not to work, obliging the pharma companies to lie about them.

SO I will stay with the position that no-one knows how antidepressants work, and this did not stopping me from taking them. Because they worked.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 26 Sep 2012 #permalink

Dr. Goldacre tirelessly campaigns to improve the accountability of drug companies, for example by having to report they are doing a trial before it starts, so it can't be hidden later if the results aren't what they hoped for. He frequently writes about the problems in clinical research. I think this is a very good thing. However, Marg seems to think that since people sometimes abuse the system we should abandon our "precious gold-plated, double-blind studied, evidence-based medicine" in favor of magic, unicorns and pixie-dust. "Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence".

Similarly, in the criminal justice system, since people sometimes lie under oath, perhaps we should replace trial by jury by deciding people's guilt on their appearance, or what they like to eat for breakfast.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

"“Shada” is now being novelized (Adams had refused to allow any of his scripts to be novelized in his lifetime, but is no longer around to object), and an effort is being made to try to duplicate his style. I wonder how much will be borrowed back from “Dirk Gently”? "

"Shada" - the novel - came out a few months ago. It was pretty good (and included some oblique references to current "Doctor Who" events).

@ herr doktor bimler:

Among those I survey there is NO admission that meds do ANYTHING for any mental condition- they just make kids commit suicide or shoot up school buildings.They have a magical belief that proper nutrition, exercise and meditation are what helps. As if what occurs in the brain is unrelated to how a person behaves or feels. But they do talk about niacin and herbs like valerian and St John's Wort. So go figure.

Although we don't know how anti-depressants work, it must have something to do with physical and chemico-electrical properties in the brain or else there would be no need to take the physical pills and we could just wave a wand or something. Which would save money on research.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ flip:

While I'm not technically 'depressed,' I occasionally have gone through brief periods when I have felt awfully bad but never without feeling anxiety/ the effects of stress. I have taken meds to help wth the latter aspect- which also alleviated the former as well. Interestingly enough, a gentleman I know- who has more standard and moderate depression- isn't exactly thrilled with SSRIs and loves him those benzodiazepines. Something tells me serotonin is somehow involved here.

Of course, children DO experience psychological conditions which can be treated with pharmaceuticals: woo-meisters are most up in arms about doctors prescribing meds for them.. remember these are the same folks who hate vaccines, ARVs and any SB innovation .Meds for LDs might really make a difference in certain children's experience of primary and secondary education, giivng them more choices for their lives.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

@DW - re the woo-meisters prejudices about mental illness: I believed depression was a normal consequence of everyday life too, until I found myself mired in one that didn't resolve on its own like previous mild episodes had. I am certainly not qualified to diagnose anyone including myself, but I suspect there was a "cascade effect' of multiple stressors that I probably could have dealt with if they'd happened one at a time instead of all together, And I love how the one-size-fits-all woo "prescriptions" don't acknowledge the fact that most depressed people can barely summon the energy to get out of bed, much less embark on ambitious diet and exercise programs. I imagine that would be a challenge for those with other types of mental illness as well. .

I was in therapy at the time I started taking the pills - my family doctor took the time to explain the way they worked and that she'd had good results with other patients, so I decided to trust her. Luckily, I responded very quickly to the pills - I know that's not a typical reaction. I also think the effect was genuine (as opposed to placebo) because it wasn't just me that noticed a difference. Other people who didn't know I'd started medication noticed a change in my moods and demeanor as well.

There is some very interesting research going on into depression and how it affects the brain- this study was in the news recently: http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v18/n9/full/nm.2886.html. There's also a good summary here of Professor Duman's previous research on depression: http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/02/uncovering-the-biology-of-depress…

Not that any of this would make a difference in woo-world since they prefer to make their own reality, but I for one am grateful that people in the real world are studying what depression does to the brain and ways to treat it, even if it eventually leads to more profits for Lord Draconis Big Pharma (!!! )

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

@All
I repeat: evidence based medicine, my gold-plated tushie. To wit:

Because researchers are free to bury any result they please, patients are exposed to harm on a staggering scale throughout the whole of medicine. Doctors can have no idea about the true effects of the treatments they give. Does this drug really work best, or have I simply been deprived of half the data? No one can tell. Is this expensive drug worth the money, or has the data simply been massaged? No one can tell. Will this drug kill patients? Is there any evidence that it's dangerous? No one can tell. This is a bizarre situation to arise in medicine, a discipline in which everything is supposed to be based on evidence.

Do you know where the lies, prevarications, omissions, and distortions are buried? Do you know which studies are valid and which are not? I doubt it. Your faith in science is simply that: faith. And paradoxically doctors like Goldacre are now reduced to observing from their own experience which drugs work and which don't, and which are harmless and which cause harm, because they simply can't trust the drug companies.

I sent the link to the Goldacre article to a friend of mine, formerly employed by Big Pharma, and her response was simply "right on!"

@DW
EFT does well with depression. Also PTSD. BTW I have wondered for a long time which arises first, the depression or the brain chemical profile. Or do they arise simultaneously?

@Edith Prickly
You are relying on personal, empirical evidence, which I have been told time and again on this discussion board is absolutely unreliable. One mustn't rely on one's own impressions, oh no, because, as you know, people believed for centuries that the sun revolved around the earth based on the evidence of their own eyes, and they were wrong. Your friends' and relatives' impressions don't count either. Only studies published by "scientists" do.

@Marg

You might want to get in touch with Ben Goldacre and ask him if you are understanding his findings correctly - to whit, that doctors are "reduced to observing from their own experience which drugs work and which don’t, and which are harmless and which cause harm, because they simply can’t trust the drug companies."

You might find that you are mistaken in your conclusions.

EFT does well with depression. Also PTSD

What exactly do you mean by "does well", as you're using it here--are you suggesting it can effect a cure or result in significant, measurable improvement? If so I have to ask you identify the evidence from which you've derived this conclusion.

@ Todd W.

Goldacre: "Half of all trials go missing in action ... This is a cancer at the core of evidence based medicine."

@Narad
What's the opposite of argument from authority? That's what you are doing here.

What’s the opposite of argument from authority? That’s what you are doing here.

No, Marg, I'm not, as that's Callahan presenting himself. EFT is simply a product of Callahan student Gary Craig, and now Callahan gets to make a buck circularly "upgrading" the marks (and offering an affiliate program).

Let's cut to the chase: Is there any "form of energy healing" that you have critically evaluated and rejected, or does it all trigger the same miserable self-interest response in you?

Sorry Marg, not taking the bait. You wore out your entertainment value quite a while ago. Anyway, isn't it bad for your aura to keep hanging around here soaking up all our nasty negative vibes?

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

Once again, Marg, do you have anything to offer that's less susceptible to error? No, you do not. On the contrary, you actually want to replace SBM with methods that are more susceptible to error, purely to serve your selfish interest in profiting emotionally and financially from erroneous notions about "energy healing."

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg's back with the same drivel and I'm bored.

Don't you have more gullible people to wave your hands at and 'accept donations' from?

@ Marg:

Although I am currently working on a RL project, I can chime in intermittently- without going into great detail- I'm sure that others will fill in what I leave out:

First of all, WHO says EFT is effective? Mercola? It involves tap, tap, tapping on accupuncture points whilst 'dealing' with emotional issues; thus it is based on accupuncture - and other whimsy-based therapies like energy medicine and NLP- all of which have unlikely mechanisms of action. The Skeptical Inquirer has a piece on it. Orac may have mentioned it but he does have articles here de-constructing- in great detail- both accupuncture and energy medicine upon which EFT relies to explain itself. The search fx here is free of charge or so I've been told.

Though we don't know precisely HOW meds work it doesn't mean that they DON'T work and because they don't work perfectly for ALL people who suffer these conditions without side effects DOESN'T mean that they're worthless.The mechanisms of action proposed to explain their effects are based in physiology- electrical-chemical, physical reality- not esoteric theories of universal life energies and suchlike.

If you notice, Dr Goldacre doesn't say that we should not use meds but that there is misleading information about their comparative efficacy. He wants the BEST meds for his patients: if he didn't believe in ANY meds, I venture that he would say so.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Narad
I say the opposite of invoking authority because you try to discredit the studies, without even actually looking them, apparently, by bringing up the name of someone whom you deem to be disreputable, for no given reason.

@DW
I love your statement though we don’t know precisely HOW meds work it doesn’t mean that they DON’T work and because they don’t work perfectly for ALL people who suffer these conditions without side effects DOESN’T mean that they’re worthless. Especially the part where you say "we don't know precisely HOW meds work". But that's okay, is it? We also don't know precisely how energy medicine works, but that's not okay. Do you people realize that you are worshipping at a shrine?

Marg,
This is all a very transparent big tu quoque straw man exercise. The dodgy science Ben Goldacre is complaining about isn't the science that has established that the prior plausibility of energy healing is practically zero. Large amounts (probably most - too lazy to check) scientific research is not done by drug companies. I think the solution is better regulation, something which I have been supporting for years, having regularly followed Ben Goldacre's blog and newspaper articles. He's also a very entertaining speaker.

Things are getting better, slowly. Double-blind placebo-controlled studies are still the best way we have of getting to the truth, as far as I can see. Ben Goldacre is a great supporter of them, and has even suggested using a version of them to decide government policy for things like education. Just because someone abuses an extremely useful tool doesn't mean we should stop using it.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

@ Marg:

The mechanisms SBM proposes are processes involving neurons, synapses and neurotransmitters, i.e. physical realities we can study and measure.
Look up what 'SSRI' signifies- it describes a process wherein a specific substance is inhibited from being taken away from a specific locus on a neuron.

Not the same as 'balancing energy'.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

Especially the part where you say “we don’t know precisely HOW meds work”. But that’s okay, is it? We also don’t know precisely how energy medicine works, or have any convincing evidence that it even does, but that’s not okay.

FTFY.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

I say the opposite of invoking authority because you try to discredit the studies, without even actually looking them, apparently, by bringing up the name of someone whom you deem to be disreputable, for no given reason.

You have not advanced any studies in favor of your newest addition to your energy-healing soup, Marg. Allow me to repeat the question: Is there any “form of energy healing” that you have critically evaluated and rejected?

@marg

Let's put it this way. If you don't answer Narad's question within 3 replies, you tacitly admit that you have never critically evaluated energy healing at all.

Just so you can stop Gish galloping all over the place.

I await the entertainment from marg's answers. Better get the popcorn ready.

@DW
Those may be the mechanisms SBM proposes, but the operative word here is proposes. Perhaps people should take a look at the work of Fritz Albert Popp.

@Narad @Novalox
I don't claim sufficient knowledge of every single form of energy medicine out to make that distinction. In the ones I do know there appear to be similarities that seem to suggest a common provenance, with variations. The biggest problem with all of them is the variability of talent and experience from practitioner to practitioner. And that would be a problem even if energy medicine were proven in principle through a dozen double-blind studies. So I would be less likely to evaluate methods than individual practitioners.

@All
I don't reject science. I am merely pointing out that medical science, claiming to be evidence based, is an idol sporting huge clay feet, covered in muck.It may have once been gold, but it is no longer. I certainly hope Goldacre and others like him succeed in cleaning it up.

@Narad
Do you actually look at links that are given, or do you just immediately go to your keyboard and spout?

@marg

Strike 1, and strike 2.

Answer the question, marg.

Do you actually look at links that are given, or do you just immediately go to your keyboard and spout?

I feel no particular compulsion to don full-body waders in order to plod further and further into the wide, wide river. Now, if you could be so kind as to get down to the point.

@DW

First of all, WHO says EFT is effective? Mercola?

Actually, just about everyone who is selling it or teaching it. Those who have looked at it scientifically not so much. I have found one paper on it by someone from The Canadian Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience showing it had no effect beyond placebo.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 27 Sep 2012 #permalink

I am merely pointing out that medical science, claiming to be evidence based, is an idol sporting huge clay feet, covered in muck.It may have once been gold, but it is no longer. I certainly hope Goldacre and others like him succeed in cleaning it up.

What Goldacre describes is not a phenomenon peculiar to medical science but applicable to all scientists. I am not surprised by Goldacre's findings because science is done by people.

Are we to assume those who promote positive $CAMedicine studies are immune from this?

Reiki, HT, TT, acupuncture & EFT all manipulate the same energy, the "common provenance"?

All shown to have no clothes by a 4th grade science project you have rejected out of hand.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

I don’t reject science. I am merely pointing out that medical science, claiming to be evidence based

You're a poor liar, Marg. Here's you in this very same thread back on the 5th:

I think the problem of non-replicability is partly an issue of the experimenter’s consciousness affecting the outcome. I also think this will become a growing problem and eventually the scientific method will have to be re-evaluated.

You're not "merely" trying to point out an imperfection in the practice of medical science, Marg, you're trying to discredit anything which doesn't let you believe your fantasies that your "energy healing" is anything but a waste of time. People who are interested in the truth examine the evidence and see where it leads them. You don't do that; you start with the conclusion you crave and you shamelessly adopt or dismiss premises at the speed of sound, based on whether they seem to support your desired conclusion.

When you think "energy healing" can be sold to the rubes as "science" you're completely willing to dress it up and pretend it's science. When you see that won't fly, you start claiming that science itself, not only in practice but in principle, needs to be revised, changed around until once again it props up your delusions.

I'll be frank, Marg. When you natter on about how energy healing is surely the paradigm of the future and surely Bengston's quantum-entangled mice prove it, I find you a pathetic yet somewhat amusing fool. But when you resort to tearing down others' real achievements in order to make your non-achievements in "energy healing" look meaningful, I find you disgusting and contemptible, like the lowest purse snatcher on the street. You covet what others have, and you try to steal it from them, rather than putting in even a hundredth of the work they have to earn it.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

I am merely pointing out that medical science, claiming to be evidence based, is an idol sporting huge clay feet, covered in muck.

Marg, you appear to have conflated clinical trials that demonstrate whether or not a drug is clinically useful that can, regrettably, be manipulated by unscrupulous drug companies, with medical research into human physiology, genetics, immunology, neurology, biochemistry and numerous other fields that is not paid for by drug companies, and even when it is, is carefully checked and replicated by scientists all over the world.

We don't believe that SSRIs inhibit reuptake of serotonin and help depression just because a drug company tells us so, though it was a scientist working for Eli Lily who discovered them. We believe it because large amounts of research, has confirmed that they do - there are thousands of research papers on SSRIs on PubMed, and the evidence that SSRIs benefit many people with moderate to severe depression is very convincing.

I spent several years working with a large number of medical scientists most of whom who were carrying out research for the Medical Research Council in Cambridge UK. MRC funding comes from central government, not drug companies and they have produced 29 Nobel Prize winners. Please don't slander decent, honest and brilliant scientists by confusing them with disreputable companies manipulating science for profit.

Your arguments here are as silly as promoting a magic carpet and denigrating the internal combustion engine because a car manufacturer faked some of its road tests.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg:

I think the problem of non-replicability is partly an issue of the experimenter’s consciousness affecting the outcome. I also think this will become a growing problem and eventually the scientific method will have to be re-evaluated.

Among other things developed by scientific methodology, one was Ohm's law, which was used to prove that long-distance telegraphy was possible. To question the scientific method is to question the existence of your own computer.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg, I'm afraid I didn't find evidence that EFT effectively treats depression etc. at the website you provided--I've found claims that it does, but once again no adequately controlled studies suggesting the self reported improvement in pain and symptoms are due to anything other than placebo effect. Nothing, for example, comparing groups of patients tapping the 'right' energy meridian points versus a control group tapping the 'wrong' points. No attempt at blinding the cohorts so that neither the subjects nor those evaluating them are aware if they're getting 'genuine' or sham EFT.

Why, if energy healing is so darn effective, are there no successful, well-controlled studies demonstrating this in diseases that are not self-limiting, that generate objective indications of effectiveness?

I asked earlier, but perhaps this time you'll answer the question: can energy healing effectively treat inflamation? Can it effectively treat asthma or COPD?

Recently amongst the woo-meisters I survey there is a claim that science itself has been corrupted by special interests and that rather than cleaning up malfeasance or increasing regulation, we need to throw out both the baby and the bathwater and start afresh.

The new paradigm should include more "spiritual" aspects and not be based purely in reductionalist materialism. Obviously that's the real problem: the scientific method leaves out spirit and soul. Probably that's why it keeps getting so corrupted: it looks outwards to the things of this world rather than inner, immaterial treasures.

My question is: Who is going to do this? People who sell supplements on the internet? You can hang a label on yourself proclaiming that you are pure as the driven snow bu it means absolutely nothing. As far as I can discern, these cries for revolution and reformation are usually part of a sales pitch to get customers to admire the carnival barker alt med salesman so that they'll buy more to reward his high ideals and greatness of spirit.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Marg

I love your statement though we don’t know precisely HOW meds work it doesn’t mean that they DON’T work and because they don’t work perfectly for ALL people who suffer these conditions without side effects DOESN’T mean that they’re worthless. Especially the part where you say “we don’t know precisely HOW meds work”. But that’s okay, is it? We also don’t know precisely how energy medicine works, but that’s not okay.

Strawman. We don't particularly care about the mechanisms of energy healing, other than that they are at least plausible. First, just like with a lot of drugs, you need to show that it actually works, i.e., that there is actually something there to be studied. If there is no plausible way that it could work, then you need some pretty damn convincing evidence that it does work. You haven't provided that.

Let's put it another way (h/t to Harriet Hall):

We don't know precisely HOW the tooth fairy enters a room, takes a tooth from under the pillow and leaves money behind, but it clearly happens. I mean. The child goes to sleep, placing the tooth under the pillow, then in the morning, it has been replaced with a quarter!

In that scenario, before we start studying how the tooth fairy accomplishes these feats, we need to establish that there actually is a tooth fairy in the first place.

And to continue in the mode Dr Hall has so creatively and graciously provided for us:

we might discover that there is NO tooth fairy at all but that the tooth-money transaction was implemented by a PERSON- usually the child's parent.

Similarly, we may discover that the supposed actions of energy medicine, EFT and accupuncture are also explicable by much more MUNDANE actors rather than esoteric manipulations of intra- and trans-personal energy systems ( i.e. by what we already have studied/ know in physics, chemistry, biology, psychology et al)
as a matter of fact, I'll venture that we already HAVE discovered that ( see search box above).

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Todd w\
According to Ben Goldacre Pharma hides half of all clinical studies, to hide the truth if drugs don't work. In many cases results cannot be replicated, but scientists insist that this not be revealed. This is bullshit. Clean up your act before you cast stones at altmeds. We think you are thoroughly corrupt. We think that if you corrupt your own studies to show effectiveness where there is none, you will sure as hell corrupt altmeds studies to show that they don't work. For every dollar altmeds practitoners make, Big Pharma makes millions. For every patient who comes to grief through altmeds Big Pharma kills tens of thousands. And it was not Mercola who was fined billions for fraudulent practices but GlaxoSmithKline et al. You are all believers and worshippers in the great new church of Modern Science and so-called Science Based Medicine.

@marg

Strike 3, yer out.

So now we can all assume that there is no form of energy healing that you have critically evaluated and rejected.

Marg, isn't that just another reason you should try to meet decent standards?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Marg

So, because pharma companies are less than ethical (no argument from me there), magic works?

Once again, I recommend that you get in touch with Ben Goldacre to see if you are correctly understanding what he's writing.

Also, way to dodge my post about tooth fairy science. Brava.

Clean up your act before you cast stones at altmeds.

You might want to tend to that plank in your eye.

Potential conflicts of interest and other biases are why we have independent replication. Universities and government organizations do research as well as pharmaceutical companies. There are also other countries out there with their own governments. All of these groups have different interests, sometimes in direct conflict of one another. If one group goes bad, the others can act as a check against them. The sheer number of players involved on the international stage makes it absurdly unlikely that one faction could dominate the field. This adversarial system paradoxically leads to a unified consensus precisely because adversaries are highly motivated to tear down bad ideas with logic and evidence. Ideas that remain standing despite the intellectual assaults are the ones most likely to be true.

If and when the scientific process is corrupted, there are established ways to discover and expose error. Science as a culture operates on the core assumption that errors can and will occur. A responsible scientist suspects his own results and seeks verification. Fraud can be exposed by these methods because it is essentially intentional error. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we've devised so far.

The altie way is blind trust. Alties as a culture prefer to shout down people who dare question a positive result. Alties prefer not to even entertain the notion that one of their own can be mistaken. Requests for elaboration on an error-checking procedure are often ignored, evaded, or denounced as "negative." Alties eschew adversarial checks and balances in favor of an unconditionally supportive environment. This support easily leads to false ideas being coddled instead of challenged. Alties defend their own, not caring about right or wrong, but on group identity.

By Bronze Dog (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

Marg, the lesson I get from your article is that standards and ethics are needed in medical studies, and that all people, great and small, must be held to them. If the heads of major pharmaceutical companies must be held accountable for their crimes, why should we give you a free pass?

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

@Bronze Dog

Not only that, but every problem that has been found with drugs has been discovered, not by altie practitioners, but by other members of what Marg describes as a corrupt, crumbling edifice.

In many cases results cannot be replicated, but scientists insist that this not be revealed. This is bullshit. Clean up your act before you cast stones at altmeds.

FYI - this isn't evidence for energy healing either

By al kimmea (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

To remix the message, we have a choice:

Choice #1: Peer review, a system of science that has multiple checks and balances designed to prevent any one group from controlling the consensus. Everyone answers to everyone else, and anyone who does the appropriate hard work can potentially overturn an incorrect consensus.

Choice #2: Mob rule anarchy, where the mob supports the mob unconditionally and answers to no one. There are no hard and fast rules, just the whims of popular fashion.

Marg is so fixated on throwing stones at the imperfections of peer review that she doesn't realize she lives in the mob's inherently unstable glass house. Yes, the peer review process needs improvement and has known problems. But the system has a lot of merits that make it worthwhile despite those problems. Marg's competing system has absolutely no merits that I can see.

Analogy irony: Peer review generally strives for greater transparency and accountability in how it operates. The mob's glass house, however, strives for greater opacity.

By Bronze Dog (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

We think that if you corrupt your own studies to show effectiveness where there is none, you will sure as hell corrupt altmeds studies to show that they don’t work.

So where then are all the altmed community's rigorous, well designed, appropriately controlled, uncorrupted studies demonstrating energy healing works?

After all, there's no necessity (even if one were corrupt) to skew a study to falsely demonstrate something doesn't work, when there's no real evidence that it does.

Part of Marg's problem is that she seems to understand the concept of rules, and how they can be applied, but does not seem fully aware that rules also apply to her. She shouts out "Don't just accept what people say at face value!" and then looks horrified when we don't accept what she says at face value.

By Gray Falcon (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink

So now we can all assume that there is no form of energy healing that you have critically evaluated and rejected.

Marg has now conceded two points:

1. Energy medicine as she conceives of it is not falsifiable, i.e., the only evidence that counts is that which favors her position.

2. Despite her broad expertise in the field, no imposters have been found, i.e., the only actual requirement is to call something energy medicine and, by default, there's no way to show that it doesn't work.

as I think I mentioned waaay upstream, an acupuncturist told his patient, suffering chronic back pain, the physiology involved in his condition is the liver processes gamma rays in the skull - so he was punctured in the head

I spoke with a co-worker who also saw an acupuncturist for the same malady - he was needled in the lower back and hip

By al kimmea (not verified) on 28 Sep 2012 #permalink