I'm a little mystified as to why anyone would attempt proof on a point
as
inane and irrelevant as whether or not someone can detect energy
fields.
I am not sure where you are going with this point. Are you saying that you know that energy fields are false and that people can't feel them? Or are you saying that people shouldn't challenge someone who makes a claim?
This is an excellent example of the problem that I have with the
pedantic,
linear logic of sceptic organizations such as yours.
The scientific process is performed in a rigid and systematic manner for a certain reason - to eliminate error. Error can be introduced by anything including improper technique, wishful thinking, bias and intentional deceit. Although I will accept on someone's word that a certain movie or a restaurant is good, I won't accept something that represents a major change in the known scientific paradigm without solid evidence if not proof.
With TT, an elaborate healing system was created that centers on the assumption of the existence of a human energy field(HEF). The HEF was proposed without any evidence. So we are looking at TTs most basic idea to see if such an energy field exists. Science has no evidence of the HEF nor anyway of measuring it. TT practitioners(TTP), however, claim to be able to feel this field so we are testing that ability.
The real proof should lie in whether or not the patient feels better,
or
experiences a more rapid resolution of symptoms.
The problem here is that the very real placebo effect (PE) must be ruled out first. Although I feel that the PE is a fantastic tool in the healing inventory, it, unfortunately, is the major source of static in healing studies. It can account for about 30% of positive results in studies. As an example, the Advil you took for your headache could have been relieved by the placebo effect alone before the Advil made it into your system. Therefore, it MUST be adequately neutralized or factored out when studies of different modalities are done. Only double-blind studies can do this.
If TT or foot reflexology have the same healing potential as a sugar pill, why bother with the added expense? Why rewrite physics or make pretend reality is different than what science has discovered? Now if someone does show otherwise, then by all means lets rewrite physics. This is what makes science so exciting. But before we change anything, let's do the real research first.
Consider these following factors in a big picture. First, placebos can be effective on symptoms (pain, anxiety, shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting and others) and temporarily for some disorders (high BP, allergies, peptic ulcer disease and much more). So, these benefits may only be effecting the patient's perception of their disease in a temporary way but not actually affecting the disease itself. Second, what is the personality profile of someone who seeks out alternative healthcare? Are they "flighty"? Disappointed with their regular doctor (not uncommon) or standard medicine (ditto)? Desperate over their poor prognosis? Too scared by invasive procedures (I fall into this category) ? Now factor in the natural ebb and flow of symptoms in diseases ranging from the minor (a cold or flu) to the moderate (arthritis) to the major and life threatening (multiple sclerosis and cancer). To someone looking for a cure, it's easy for an alternative healthcare practitioner (AHP) to sneak in here and appear to be the savior to both the patient and himself.
Placebos have their drawbacks. They can mask and obscure symptoms which could be serious and even diagnostic. A recent review of 109 double- blind drug trials found that the overall incidence of adverse events in healthy volunteers during placebo administration is 19% (Rosensweig P and others. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 54:573-578, 1993). Others may receive a false sense of security leading them to discount their condition or rely to heavily on the placebo. They may also decide that their regular conventional therapies are no longer necessary.
The dearth of good controlled double-blind for alternative therapies is of great concern. We don't know the real percentage of people who walked away from an AHP and said, "That was a complete waste of time."
If "the real proof should lie in whether or not the patient feels
better, or
experiences a more rapid resolution of symptoms," then anything goes.
Every idea that comes down the pike is a legitimate therapy. I could
start my own therapy tomorrow that involves eating garlic while sitting
under a "black" light. By utilizing the right rapport skills, an air of
competence and a few people to rave about what a great job of healing
I've done for them, I could easily build upon the base 30% placebo
benefit. In a short time I could develop a practice of my own, collect
money and start giving seminars to train others in the technique.
With this new standard, N-ray machines, snake oils, bloodletting and the many proven fraud treatments of the past can be brought back. They too have had their share of satisfied customers and cures. Add to this mix homeopathy, acupuncture, foot reflexology, crystal healing, herbal remedies, vitamin therapies, laetrile, Mexican cancer spas and the list goes on. They all have people who will swear that the "treatment" they received worked and really believe in it. Yet of these hundreds of therapies many are groundless, have questionable scientific merit or haven't produced research to differentiate themselves from placebos. I find this to be a frightening scenario. How is the average person supposed to know what is and is not a legitimate therapy? Which one or ones deserve his hard earned cash? Which one is really doing him some good? Does the patient really benefit if the perceived improvement isn't real? Are we allowing the patient to be harmed?
Why don't you guys concentrate on something that provides hard numbers
?
First things first. This system has been in use for over 20 years. The proponents should have brought in the "hard numbers" years ago. We are starting over from scratch doing the most basic test that should have been done years ago.
Why should people who are able to access higher levels of intelligence
be
bound by people who are unable to think at higher, more intuitive
levels?
I don't know. I'd just like to see the people who think on these "higher
levels" produce data to reflect that thinking. In the meantime, I'll
propose a question too.
"Why should the general public be subjected to 'healing' therapies that
are indistinguishable from a placebo with little or no supportive data
but are touted as 'scientifically researched' and 'proven'?"
If someone will broaden the definition of proof on this competition to
include something real and measurable, I'll not only participate, I'll win.
Again first things first. While you are waiting, it is also imperative then that you develop a test that is double-blind and start your own research.
But I'd want to see proof of the escrow account first.
Randi could do that if we ever get to that point.
And I've NEVER been able to detect energy fields! It's not even relevant!
It's relevant if you claim to be able to do it as the many TTPs claim.
Bob Glickman
President of PhACT
There is one thing that never fails to mystify me. This is the way people try to restate my intentions and/or motivations and how far off these restatements are from what I wrote. I have been writing in the simplest and clearest terms possible precisely to avoid such misunderstandings. One more time, by responding to comments to me, I will state why I am here and what it is I am trying to do.
First, I want to address Margaret Lunney, Ph.D., RN, CS who stated, "I am not a therapeutic touch practitioner but I support others in their ability to use TT because of the scientific evidence that it works. Glickman should read the evidence or be open to have therapeutic touch yourself and see what it can do. It sounds, however, as if you are afraid and suspicious of anything you can't see."
Contrary to what you may think, I have studied the evidence for TT. >From Krieger's initial hemoglobin study to the present, it is virtually non-existent. TT studies have suffered from poor design, poor methodology, poor controls, improper or absent double-blinding measures and improper statistics to name a few. Don't take my word for it. Therese Meehan RN, Ph.D., a Rogerian TT researcher stated, "What current research tells us, according to Popper's principles of refutation and verification, is that there is no convincing evidence that TT promotes relaxation and decreases anxiety beyond a placebo response, that the effects of TT on pain are unclear and replication studies are needed before any conclusions can be drawn. Other claims about outcomes are, in fact, speculation." Meehan, T. (1995) Letter in the American Journal of Nursing, Jul., 75(7):17. I could cite more but I don't think it is necessary.
The healing effects noted by many TT practitioners can too easily be attributed to the Placebo Effect. This is the prime source of static and false positives in healing studies. To make any definitive statement about any healing modality, it MUST be effectively ruled out in any study. Regarding the notion that I am "afraid and suspicious of anything I can't see," I don't know why you would think that. If I was fearful of TT, the last thing I would do would be to design a test that would conclusively prove a major plank of the TT concept. The only people who have something to fear are the ones that have something to hide. I seek and embrace the truth, not fear it.
To Mary Jo Borden: Let me clarify what I do understand and what elements of TT and Rogerian theory I am trying to test. I do know about electromagnetic fields. I know that they are proven to exist. I know that a hypothesis regarding the nature of this concept can be formulated and predictions of an outcome can be made. Then the testing of this hypothesis can begin and results of the testing can be analyzed. The best part is that everyone can learn and understand the terms and procedures so they can independently repeat the test on their own. This is the scientific method and how knowledge is obtained. In TT and in Rogerian science, I don't see this process at all. As stated before, the TT scientific research is groundless. In Rogerian science, speculation is mounted on more speculation creating newer and grander ideas, but no actual specific testing is done. If anything, many of these ideas are beyond testing. Without this vital testing, upon which factual and useful data can be built, statements like "I believe that energy field is not emanating and physically palpable, but rather manifest as pattern" are virtually devoid of meaning. Then there is the "Blur." The Blur is where TT science and Rogerian science "overlap." I am constantly being accused of not understanding the differences in the TT human energy field (HEF) that can be felt and the Rogerian energy field that can be perceived. As mentioned in a previous note, based on what is written in this e-mail service, this confusion is commonplace and constantly debated among the Rogerian scholars themselves. When it is convenient, positive or conclusive, the TT HEF and the Rogerian HEF are the same thing. When it is detrimental, they aren't the same thing. Yet several Rogerians talk about the TT studies they are working on. This confusion isn't mine. It belongs to the people of Rogerian science. It is also their duty to straighten it out. So I am not trying to make any assumptions at all. Both the TT people and some of the Rogerians claim, in some way, to be able to feel or perceive a HEF or a human energy manifestation. Until someone can be more definitive, I personally don't care who does what. What I do care about is that when a testable claim, especially one that severely deviates from the known scientific paradigm, is made under the guise of science, it must be properly tested.
To Richard Cowling: Yes, I respect your right to advocate for a specific world view. What I am trying to do is encourage you and all to refine that view into something that is more scientific and accessible to those outside of Rogerian science.
John Webster Frost: When I posted the TT challenge, it was in the interest of good science. As far as I know, the Nurse-Rogers e-mail service is intended to discuss Rogerian science. Research studies and counter-studies, discussion, debates and even arguing are considered normal and healthy in good science. So a scientific body should not be afraid of or offended by a serious inquiry, nor should it be considered "bad taste." Discouraging such inquiries indicates that something is seriously wrong. If this was the Martha Rogers Theology service, then this would be a different story. In that case, I never would have posted anything here. Nursing is my profession and I have deep concerns about it. Nursing is first and foremost, a science but it is we as nurses who bring the vital aspect of caring to this scientific discipline. I feel we all have a lot to be proud of when we think of the demanding work we do. Still, many people point to Rogerian Science as being part of the "Anti-science" movement. This concerns me so I feel I have every right to post such a challenge here. Had people not responded so negatively to the posting, I would not have needed to follow up with more postings. I don't want any "anti-science" in my profession. I am actually trying to help. I feel that this test is an excellent opportunity for Rogerian science to step forward into mainstream science. Bob