by Kevin Courcey RN with responses by Grant Hallman in blue
below.  We also have responses to Grant from George in purple.

This seems to be a case of "i don't believe in it so u shouldn't do it" -
 
george pace <surfgeorge@yahoo.com>

 Hi - I guess I'll toss in my 2 cents, although I confess I'm very
interested in the fact that many tt practitioners refer to research
studies in support of their claims, but are unwilling to answer the
criticisms regarding the selectivity, weaknesses and methodological
problems that invalidate the (positive) conclusions of those studies
(often by saying things similar to “i'm not too interested in all the
"does so" - "does not" arguements [sic] about the research”), there
were a couple of things that I want to comment on. It might be more of a case of “if this practice hasn’t met the same
standards of scientific scrutiny as other practices approved for use
in this facility, then it ought not to be allowed.”   But then it
seems that many tt practitioners are “not too interested in all the
"does so" - "does not" arguements [sic] about the research.”  So,
which is it?  “Scientific research is worthwile and subject to full
scrutiny as to validity, in which case poor methodology must be
acknowledged as invalidating the research,”  or some version of
“Science has limitations, it can be quibbled over interminably,
and/or
besides there are other ‘ways of knowing’.”  Which brings us to the
next point Mr. Hallman makes.
 

seems to me if pepl are using TT, or leeches, or prayers to Zeus, whatever,
with what they believe to be good results, what concern is that of anyone
else?

Here we have the crux of the argument from many tt (and many other
“alternative”) practitioners: “they BELIEVE (“it” works).”   It also
appears in the form “they KNOW (“it” works).”  The whole point of Mr.
Courcey’s letter is that there ARE ways of evaluating the efficacy of
a treatment modality that is independent of and extraordinarily more
reliable than the claimed “belief” or “knowledge” of an individual
practitioner (based upon their personal anecdotes).  What many
“alternative” practitioners claim is, basically, “I am incapable of
making an error in the interpretation of my experience.”  Of course,
the gradual confirmation of the fallaciousness of that claim regarding
ANY human experience is what evolved into what we call “the scientific
method.”  If Mr. Hallman, et. al., wants anything anyone practices
with what “they believe to be good results” to be allowed, then
“leeches, or prayers to Zeus” will be among the most benign practices
allowed in hospitals.  It is the “concern...of anyone else” because it
may be fraudulent (not to mention ineffective), and, if so, like the
claimed successes and efficacy of “leeches [and] prayers to Zeus”
ought no longer be sanctioned due to their having failed the test of
“scientific” scrutiny.

Unless of course harm is being done... however as TT is done without
harm, and is either cheap or free, what's all the fuss about?

There are many ways to define “harm”.  Leeches, animal sacrifice,
voodoo rituals, prayers to Zeus (or whatever), etc. may all be either
“cheap or free,” but there may be harm in the patient/client not
getting or delaying other forms of needed care/treatment (which
certainly happens with many “alternative” medical modalities).  If
something doesn’t work, the fact that it is free or cheap is
inconsequential.  Is fraud harmful? Some people are inclined to make a
“fuss about” perpetrating fraud.  Call it a personality flaw.

The head TT practitioner in the hospital got wind of it, and
wrote a letter chastizing me for relying on the JAMA article, rather than
doing my own survey of the literature.  She offered to send me a
bibliography of the "comprehensive body of literature" available which
supports TT.  I accepted her offer.  After about a month, she finally sent
me the bibliography and copies of several articles.  The following is my
response to her packet of information. (The name has been changed)

Claudette-

   Thanks for sending the bibliography and the accompanying articles. I had
actually said just the day before that I needed to get the Clark and Clark
literature review after reading about it in another journal. I was somewhat
surprised that you sent it, however, since it roundly criticizes the TT
research done to date. After noting numerous fatal methodological flaws in
the works of Grad, Smith, Krieger, Heidt, and Randolph, the authors end with
the summary that "In the final analysis, the current research base
supporting continued nursing practice of therapeutic touch is, at best,
weak." They continued by noting that "it may be presumptuous to teach the
art or to seriously discuss the use of this practice in the treatment of
illness." Hardly a glowing endorsement.

   On your bibliography, I noticed several studies I am already familiar with,
and, once again, I am surprised that you cite them as support for TT. The
Fedoruk NICU study has been universally criticized for its numerous flaws.
Not only were the researchers proponents of TT, they were the sole data
collectors and raters of infant behavior. To make things worse, they knew
which infants were treated with TT and which were treated with "mock" TT
before rating their behaviors! The proof of their bias is shown by the fact
that the one physiologic indicator that was measured mechanically, oxygen
saturation levels, remained the same in the TT and mock TT groups. Yet this
one incredibly flawed study has nurses all over the country waving their
hands over premature infants, probably subjecting them to increased stress
levels by their bizarre and threatening behavior.

The next study you flagged was the 1990 Kramer study on kids. On this one,
I'll let TT researcher MTC Meehan do the damage: "While no doubt conducted
with sincere intent, this study contains so many flaws in its design and
analysis that it would be soundly trounced by a class of undergraduates
engaged in their first research critique." Ouch!

You also starred the Quinn studies on your bibliography. One problem with
all the Quinn studies is the procedure she uses for the "mock" TT (Quinn had
them count backwards from 100 by serial 7's). As you can well imagine, the
client's experience of someone who is anxiously internally preoccupied with
a series of math problems would be drastically different than their
experience of someone who was in a relaxed state, calmly focusing all their
attention on the patient. Yet this is how Quinn tests her hypothesis. And
hey, what do you know, the TT group showed more relaxation than the group
that had the strangers who seemed internally preoccupied waving their hands
inches from their faces.

This critique of Quinn's 1984 study is moot, however, because Quinn could
not duplicate her results in her 1989 study. In an attempt to finally prove
that there was an actual energy transfer taking place, not just some placebo
attention response, Quinn eliminated eye contact during TT. In her own
words, "The theorem that eye and facial contact between TT practitioners and
subjects should not be necessary to produce the effect of anxiety reduction
was deduced from the Rogerian conceptual system and tested. The theorem was
not supported." To the unbiased observer, this would seem to show that TT is
completely dependent upon the focused attention given the patient by the
nurse. Perhaps if more advanced practice RN's would put as much "energy"
into pushing for better staffing levels on the floors as they do into
pushing the practice of TT, all nurses would be able to give their
patients the 15 minutes of undivided attention that seems to be responsible
for the results seen for TT. (A little editorial comment there.)

I was appalled by the AJN article for CEU credit. Since when is a first
person, completely anecdotal essay worthy of continuing education credits?
The author makes flat statements about the healings, analgesia, etc. that TT
is purported to deliver, but does not cite studies to support her claims.
The studies that are described in a sidebar to the article are not cited and
misrepresent the research to which they refer.

The post-op study mentioned is obviously Meehan's 1993 study -Meehan
herself says this study did not support the hypothesis that TT would
significantly decrease post-op pain compared to a placebo.

The second uncited study in the sidebar is Wirth's dermal regeneration
study. The author claims this demonstrates the amazing healing powers of
TT. However, by 1995, the year this CEU article came out, Wirth had
acknowledged that "The results of the experiments indicated significance for
the treatment group in the initial 2 studies in the series, and non and
reverse significant results for the control group in the remaining 3
experiments." In other words, overall, the control group fared as well or
better than the TT group. His first study is always cited by proponents,
while his own assessment of his series of 5 trials is never mentioned. Why
is that? Could it be because the studies show a randomness of results that
should be ascribed to chance rather than TT?

The third study mentioned in the AJN sidebar was Quinn's 1993 "pilot"
study. Even Quinn admits that "no definitive conclusions can be reached
based on these pilot data." Yet they are presented as documented, scientific
support for TT. The fact that the author had to resort to such flimsy
studies after 30 years of research seems to me a clear reflection of the
paucity of evidence TT proponents have at their disposal.

The information you copied for me on the electromagnetic field generated by
the hands was interesting, but was completely hypothetical. The diagram of
a "vortex" of energy in the palm of the hand caused by the arteriovenous
system has no physical counterpart. The veins and arteries in the hand do
not "vortex" in the middle of the palm. The arterial system and the venous
system extend completely through the entire hand and out into the fingers.
The article also seamlessly floats between the concepts of "heat" and
"energy." We can all agree that the hands generate heat. What we cannot
agree on, and that which has never been shown empirically, is that the hands
throw off/direct/detect energy other than heat such as that claimed by TT
practitioners. An imbalance of heat does not make one ill. Practitioners
claim that an imbalance of energy does create illness, so we are clearly
talking about two different energies.

The Gagne and Toye study- comparing TT with relaxation therapy was
interesting in that relaxation therapy was shown to be more effective than
TT at achieving a relaxed state. Also interesting was the fact that the TT
intervention was done in street clothes, while the mock TT was delivered by
a nurse in traditional nursing garb, and the relaxation therapy done by a
priest in his robes! Considering this was a group of psych patients, the
dynamics of having the target treatment done by a casually dressed nurse,
and the mock by a nurse in her clothes of authority-the same clothes worn
when they are given their meds, or their time-outs-strikes me as
exceptionally poor design. Plus having a theologian deliver one of the
target treatments in garb...the confounding variables are virtually endless.
This was also yet another study polluted by Quinn's mock protocol of having
the therapist perform complex mathematical calculations in their head while
mimicking the gestures of TT.

Krieger's 1988 historical overview had little of interest except that she
misreported her 1973 findings' level of confidence. She also now claims to
have controlled for meditation in that study, however this is not reflected
in her original report, and other researchers have stated that all but one
of the participants in that study chose to meditate. Her hemoglobin studies
have been dismissed even by such hard core TT advocates as Quinn and Meehan,
so I see little reason to dwell on them. (Quinn: "...it is clear that no
causal connection between the TT treatment and the apparent change in
hemoglobin could be made"(1988) and Meehan: "Methodological problems
preclude scientific support for an increase in hemoglobin values. Subsequent
studies have found no significant relationship between TT and increased
hemoglobin values or transcutaneous oxygen blood gas pressure."(1992))

The article from Today's OR Nurse was interesting on a number of levels.
The fact that the author assumes that she can just go ahead and use this
technique on people in various states of anesthesia seems unethical. Many
fundamentalist Christians feel that healing can only take place through a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that such healing is a
manifestation of the holy spirit. They are quite sure that TT is, in fact, a
Satanic rite, since it invokes an unknown, impersonal "universal energy"
rather than the personal healing power of Christ. Using this technique on an
anesthetized patient without a complete informed consent filled out, could
subject the nurse and the hospital to a huge lawsuit.
 

This point is IMO valid - any TTP should be working only within the
informed, advance consent of the client. I could see a few exceptions -
first-aid to an accident victim while waiting for medical help to arrive, or
conditionally a comatose patient with no kin available, but not much else.

Within this point are some interesting other points tho... i'd be curious
what a person who believes that "healing can only take place through a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ" is doing in an OR in the first place.

Also it has been my experience that standard medical practice falls far
short of "informed consent" - just try asking a MD about side effects to
his/her favorite medications, or getting a straight answer from a nurse when
u wanna know what's in those pills. I do expect better from TTP's tho, and
usually see it.

Hmm, "huge lawsuit" - i suppose it would be necessary to show /harm/ from
TT, which would require showing an /effect/...  it could be interesting to
watch all the players suddenly change sides in the argument ;) Has a
fundamentalist Christian ever attempted litigation because the surgeon was
Jewish? How about Druid? (Oh, wait, Druid surgeons are called "carpenters" ;))

This article cites as fact many of the flawed studies I have already
discussed above, including Krieger's hemoglobin studies, Meehan's post-op
study, Fedoruk's NICU study, and Wirth's subsequently 'wirthless' studies.
It is almost as if they believe that by sheer repetition, they can create a
scientific basis for this practice. As Therese Meehan commented in Research
in Nursing and Health, most TT practitioners are clueless when it comes to
reading scientific research critically.

True. Also true of most doctors, drug company executives and reporters. The
point is... ?

So he's saying that, even with the deck stacked heavily in their favor, the
prayed-for group had significantly worse outcome? Wouldn't that demonstrate
a significant (altho negative) effect of prayer?

Wow, imagine the anger behind this statement. The nurse takes a few seconds
to become calm and sends thoughts of well-being to the patient, and she
should not be allowed to practice. My wife just had gall baladder surgery,
she's recovering fine except for an excruciating charley-horse in her
shoulder, due to the way her arm was placed for IV during surgery. That
hurts worse and lasts longer than the gallstones did. Possibly if a nurse
had taken a moment to center, review the "big picture" and think about the
patient as a person as well as a surgical site, this could have been noticed
and avoided.

I have to say there is totally inadequate vocabulary to describe the TT
process and effects, and sometimes it comes out sounding just like the above
description. I get especially uncomfortable when TTers talk about Quantum
Physics as tho it were quantitatively applicable to the TT process. I've
done both, and i don't see the link, except as metaphore.

I've asked this before, without a satisfactory answer - the placebo effect
brings comfort and (unexplained) benefit, and is so powerful that drug
companies spend millions in double-blind efficacy testing trying to
eliminate it. If TT is nothing more than an enhanced, packaged placebo
effect, doesn't that alone make it worthwhile? Placebo is harmless, cheap or
free, sometimes helpfull, sounds like a deal to me...
 

There’s been a lot written about the efficacy and ethics of
prescribing/using placebos.  It’s a great testament to the human
“imagination” (or whatever you want to call the process) that people
can have such a rich variety of “genuine experiences” (they “know” it
is “real,” i.e. “caused by” the placebo) when exposed to some inert
substance/process.  I don’t see that tt is any more of an ”enhanced”
placebo than many other alternative practices.  The problem, of
course, is that tt is not presented as a placebo, which would be part
of an ethical informed consent.  The writings of Kunz, Krieger, Quinn,
et. al. CLEARLY claim something other than placebo.  The whole point
of rigorous research would be to discover if tt “success” is a placebo
effect.  If so: 1. ANY placebo with a comparable “success” rate could
be substituted (many of which would be less costly and time consuming
than tt), and 2. It would then be clearly unethical and fraudulent for
anyone to make any claim other than “placebo effect” for the results
of tt practice.  As it stands now, tt practitioners are making
innumerable claims, mostly without rigorous evidence to substantiate
them. Thus Mr. Courcey’s concern.

Well in the dark ages we had anti-science, then we came to
nothing-but-science, now we've got a reaction against science... possibly we
will graduate to "science-plus", a mindset that values both experimentation
and individual experience, integrated.

Ok, that's all i got for 2 cents - grant

 

The problem, obviously, is when “experimentation” contradicts
“individual experience.”  If we side with Mr. Hallman and come down on
the side of “individual experience” (those who “believe” and “know”
that the results of their practice are valid and real) we will have
not only tt, leeches, and prayers to Zeus, but much more and much
worse (eugenics -> “racial cleansing” holocausts, etc.).  If we come
down on the side of “experimentation” (scientific method), we will
have a painfully slow unfolding of the nature of reality that will be
resisted “tooth and claw” by those who must hold onto their “magical”
realities that only they and their fellow believers (who have similar
“individual experiences”) have access to, and “know” to be “true.”
(Who's "individual experience" "God" is the "real" "god"? -> crusades,
jihad, etc.)  Hmmm. Sound familiar?  So be it (as they say).

Y’all enjoy!

george pace
surfgeorge@yahoo.com
 

 

Kevin Courcey RN

additional notes from Kevin:
Eric-
You might want to add that the TTP's response to my letter was simply to
state that we apparently "disagree on the foundational support for TT," and
that she would be most comfortable ending the discussion.  No response to
the criticisms, no attempt to justify the practice scientifically, no
rationale for continued investigation.  She will undoubtedly continue to
practice and teach that TT speeds healing, reduces pain, and quiets anxiety
by smoothing wrinkled energy fields through the intentionality of the
healer.  She will cite the research as if it is valid, and make claims based
upon the research that are contrary, in many cases, to the statements of the
researchers themselves.  And they wonder why we get upset with them, and
accuse them of fraud.  They refuse to be held accountable scientifically,
saying their practice exists in a realm outside science, and have thereby
created not another nursing modality, but a religion-based on uncritical
belief, wishful thinking, and the occasional positive placebo or relaxation
response.
 

I should say by way of clarification, that i do not mean to trivialize the
value of well-designed research and considered criticism. It's just that all
the name-calling and niggling that goes on, as tho either side is terrified
that the other side will be able to actually /prove/ something, is not an
atmosphere that leads to truthfinding. So far, i don't think the "skeptics"
and the TTers are even trying to measure the same thing. It reminds me of
the arguments physicists used to have about whether light is waves or
particles. Each camp designed more and better experiments to prove that
their side was right and the other wrong, while light just kept on doing its
thing. Now we know that light (and for that matter particles) both exhibit
wavelike and particle-like properties. The argument hasn't been so much
_settled_ as transcended by a deeper understanding of the phenomenon.

I don't think TTers should be dismissing negative results of someone's
experiments - especially not their own. If the experiment is designed right,
the results /mean/ something. But similarly it is unreasonable to dismiss
thousands of positive experiences of TT clients as "merely" anecdotal. This
is essentially saying that the experience of pepl in white lab coats is
somehow more authoritative than other pepl's.

I would tend to weigh proper experimental design, repeatability and
well-done scientific method more than a few personal stories. But there are
/thousands/ of such stories. To me, that points to an incomplete
understanding of the phenomenon, not the absence of one.

>---grant hallman <unilogic@pathcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: grant hallman <unilogic@pathcom.com>
>>
>> This seems to be a case of "i don't believe in it so u shouldn't do
>it" -
>
>It might be more of a case of "if this practice hasn't met the same
>standards of scientific scrutiny as other practices approved for use
>in this facility, then it ought not to be allowed."   But then it
>seems that many tt practitioners are "not too interested in all the
>"does so" - "does not" arguements [sic] about the research."  So,
>which is it?  "Scientific research is worthwile and subject to full
>scrutiny as to validity, in which case poor methodology must be
>acknowledged as invalidating the research,"  or some version of
>"Science has limitations, it can be quibbled over interminably, and/or
>besides there are other 'ways of knowing'."  Which brings us to the
>next point Mr. Hallman makes.

As to the alternatives u propose above, i'd think there's a good deal of
truth in both statements. Sure, research is worthwhile, and sure, it has its
limitations (cold fusion? thalidomide? we're only human). I guess what i'd
like to see in the whole "TT or not TT" discourse is a higher level of
"quibbling". For example, an experiment that measures efficacy, rather than
"HEF detection", and that has some basis for accepting input about how the
client feels.

>> seems to me if pepl are using TT, or leeches, or prayers to Zeus,
>whatever,
>> with what they believe to be good results, what concern is that of
>anyone
>> else?
>
>Here we have the crux of the argument from many tt (and many other
>"alternative") practitioners: "they BELIEVE ("it" works)."   It also
>appears in the form "they KNOW ("it" works)."

I see 2 issues here. One is accountability. If the TTP and the client are
both happy with the transaction, and remain so over time and over a large
number of clients, then that seems to me no different than clients going for
something else that someone might think wasteful, like Freudian analysis or
a manicure - it's a contract between informed, or at least experienced
adults that is their own affair. What business is it to a disapproving 3rd
party?

Second is the issue of "KNOWing". I use TT several times a week, not as a
living. I have accumulated 14 years' experience giving treatments in a
variety of situations and with a variety of clients' conditions. In about
80% of the treatments, i receive immediate, positive to very positive
feedback, from clients saying that they have benefitted. No one has ever
reported harm. My question is, how long do i have to experience this before
i /am/ entitled to say that i _know_ it works? Something beneficial usually
happens, i'd hafta be deaf and blind not to notice.

>The whole point of Mr.
>Courcey's letter is that there ARE ways of evaluating the efficacy of
>a treatment modality that is independent of and extraordinarily more
>reliable than the claimed "belief" or "knowledge" of an individual
>practitioner (based upon their personal anecdotes).  What many
>"alternative" practitioners claim is, basically, "I am incapable of
>making an error in the interpretation of my experience."

Not /my/ position, anyway. I may be entirely wrong about /how/ or /why/ pepl
generally benefit from TT treatments. But to disbelieve that there /is/ a
benefit, i'd hafta assume that large numbers of clients regularly lie about
their feelings, possibly even a continent-wide conspiracy to pretend TT
works. I'm baffled why "skeptics" think this would be happening, i mean, who
would benefit from such an elaborate charade? I guess Krieger would sell a
few more books, but u hafta have an awfully low opinion of pepl to think
that so many are being fooled so thoroughly for so long, if there's just
nothing to it.

>Of course,
>the gradual confirmation of the fallaciousness of that claim regarding
>ANY human experience is what evolved into what we call "the scientific
>method."  If Mr. Hallman, et. al., wants anything anyone practices
>with what "they believe to be good results" to be allowed, then
>"leeches, or prayers to Zeus" will be among the most benign practices
>allowed in hospitals.

There is some argument that they are /already/ among the most benign.
Iatrogenic diseases, dangerous administrative screwups, arrogant medical
practitioners, outright mistakes, these all exist within the rigorous
scientific model of medical treatments. BTW "what they believe to be good
results" was intended to include the clients' belief, not just the
practitioners.

What this points to is a scenario where clients and practitioners both
believe that clients benefit, but because scientific proof is lacking, the
practice should be unavailable. Why not let pepl decide for themselves?
Who's in charge of pepl's health, anyway? God help us if the medical
profession says "we are", or the TTP's for that matter. Me, i'm in charge of
my own health. And i want all the help i can get, from medicine, surgery,
diet, environment, TT, or any other way that i can find it.

>It is the "concern...of anyone else" because it
>may be fraudulent (not to mention ineffective), and, if so, like the
>claimed successes and efficacy of "leeches [and] prayers to Zeus"
>ought no longer be sanctioned due to their having failed the test of
>"scientific" scrutiny.

There's a difference between "not sanctioned" and "forbidden". Look at the
test of scientific scrutiny as it applies to conventional medication. ASA
has been used for hundreds of years, its benefits and risks learned by trial
and error, only very recently has any mechanism been elucidated. Or consider
the use of radiation as a cancer treatment - for a long time, the critical
role of cell apoptosis was unknown. And very recently, better X-ray modeling
software from Livermore is showing that tumors have typically been
underdosed in a too-conservative attempt to spare adjacent tissues.

My point is, a great deal of medicine is practised ad hoc, without a deep
understanding of why it works, or whether it will work in a particular
patient. So often, the doctor will try something and then ask the patient
"How do u feel?". Just like a TTP does. This practice is probably essential,
often successful. Such incompletely understood treatments routinely deal
with life-or-death risks, and may cause significant collateral damage. Why
should this be acceptable in medicine, yet something as clinically harmless
as TT be held to some higher standard of proof? We don't know how it works,
but neither does medical science know how a good deal of its toolkit works
either.

>Unless of course harm is being done... however as TT is done without
>> harm, and is either cheap or free, what's all the fuss about?
>
>There are many ways to define "harm".  Leeches, animal sacrifice,
>voodoo rituals, prayers to Zeus (or whatever), etc. may all be either
>"cheap or free," but there may be harm in the patient/client not
>getting or delaying other forms of needed care/treatment (which
>certainly happens with many "alternative" medical modalities).

Ok, but we're talking about TT. No TTP should be holding forth TT as an
"alternative" to surgery or medication. TT is considered a "complementary"
technique. If it turns out that less analgesic is needed, or some condition
"coincidentally" clears up or turns out to be less severe than first
thought, that should absolutely be confirmed by a physician.

>If
>something doesn't work, the fact that it is free or cheap is
>inconsequential.  Is fraud harmful? Some people are inclined to make a
>"fuss about" perpetrating fraud.  Call it a personality flaw.

Hmm, i've always thot of "fraud" as a deliberate deception, typically with
the intent of financial gain. As TTP's typically believe sincerely in their
practice, and a large portion of treatments are given on a volunteer basis,
it's kinda hard to see how that perjorative applies.

>> I've asked this before, without a satisfactory answer - the placebo
>effect
>> brings comfort and (unexplained) benefit, and is so powerful that drug
>> companies spend millions in double-blind efficacy testing trying to
>> eliminate it. If TT is nothing more than an enhanced, packaged placebo
>> effect, doesn't that alone make it worthwhile? Placebo is harmless,
>cheap or
>> free, sometimes helpfull, sounds like a deal to me...
>
>There's been a lot written about the efficacy and ethics of
>prescribing/using placebos.  It's a great testament to the human
>"imagination" (or whatever you want to call the process) that people
>can have such a rich variety of "genuine experiences" (they "know" it
>is "real," i.e. "caused by" the placebo) when exposed to some inert
>substance/process.

This is a serious, not rhetorical question: How do u suppose that placebo
effect works? It's common enuf that it can hardly be denied. One can see it
may be unethical to give an inactive "placebo" pill to a cancer patient who
thinks they're getting medication, that's deception. But if i tell a client
that pepl often feel relaxation, well-being, comfort as an effect of
treatment, i'm not holding out a "cure", i'm just stating what other clients
have reported.

>I don't see that tt is any more of an "enhanced"
>placebo than many other alternative practices.  The problem, of
>course, is that tt is not presented as a placebo, which would be part
>of an ethical informed consent.  The writings of Kunz, Krieger, Quinn,
>et. al. CLEARLY claim something other than placebo.  The whole point
>of rigorous research would be to discover if tt "success" is a placebo
>effect.  If so: 1. ANY placebo with a comparable "success" rate could
>be substituted (many of which would be less costly and time consuming
>than tt),

I'm seriously interested in what these other placebos are. Cheaper than
vounteer TT, faster than 10 minutes, typical prompt relaxation and enhanced
wellbeing. I'm not trying to be cute here, i think i see "placebo" as rather
more effective at actual healing than u do. Do they exist? What are they ?

>and 2. It would then be clearly unethical and fraudulent for
>anyone to make any claim other than "placebo effect" for the results
>of tt practice.

Fine, as long as pepl understand just how powerful "placebo" can be.

>As it stands now, tt practitioners are making
>innumerable claims, mostly without rigorous evidence to substantiate
>them. Thus Mr. Courcey's concern.

Perhaps it would help if u list some of the claims which u find offensive?

>> Well in the dark ages we had anti-science, then we came to
>> nothing-but-science, now we've got a reaction against science...
>possibly we
>> will graduate to "science-plus", a mindset that values both
>experimentation
>> and individual experience, integrated.
>
>The problem, obviously, is when "experimentation" contradicts
>"individual experience."
>If we side with Mr. Hallman and come down on
>the side of "individual experience" (those who "believe" and "know"
>that the results of their practice are valid and real)

Hold on, i'm not blindly in favor of "individual experience" as
reality-claim when it is contradicted by well-designed experiments. A
well-designed experiment is also someone's (formalized) experience. When the
two differ so radically, to me that's a sign of incomplete understanding.
The remedy i prefer is more careful analysis. I think claims of "fraud" are
a little... premature... given the parameters here.

>we will have
>not only tt, leeches, and prayers to Zeus, but much more and much
>worse (eugenics -> "racial cleansing" holocausts, etc.).  If we come
>down on the side of "experimentation" (scientific method), we will
>have a painfully slow unfolding of the nature of reality that will be
>resisted "tooth and claw" by those who must hold onto their "magical"
>realities that only they and their fellow believers (who have similar
>"individual experiences") have access to, and "know" to be "true."
>(Who's "individual experience" "God" is the "real" "god"? -> crusades,
>jihad, etc.)  Hmmm. Sound familiar?  So be it (as they say).
>
>Y'all enjoy!
>
>george pace
>surfgeorge@yahoo.com

Are u actually claiming that scientific methodology is some defence against
atrocities? Must i point out that Nazi (and other) horrors were well endowed
with "scientific" support? Do u actually believe that the scientific method
is immune to politics, prejudice, or systematic error? It's probably the
best tool we have for reaching objective truth, but it seems heartless to
wait for everything to be discovered while pepl are in need. TT as well as
medicine does the best it can, with whatever clients say works.

regards - grant

You can scan the TT email list archives at: http://www.onelist.com/archives.cgi/tt subscribe to the TT discussion list at: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/tt