to think you can't certify woo

[RickRoll]

This is for a job as a

"Part-time Complementary Therapist Reiki/Spiritual Healer"

in an Epping NHS hospital

www.jobs.nhs.uk/xi/vacancy/26ed44d3913ede389bedce1e4777458a/?vac_ref=913927029

"For this role you will need a Reiki Master Usui System qualification."

WTF?

It's just bonkers.

And cancer services are one of the better funded areas of healthcare.

I'd rather they spent the money on mental health services, or dementia care, or care for people with learning disabilities. Not that cancer care isn't tremendously important, it is, but IMO this isn't a valid way to spend resources.

oi!
lay off the lentil weavers!
nobody made any claims for the supernatural powers of woven lentils, just that they look kind of rustic

I'd employ you, Binary
Starting salary £20,000. Just don't mention evidence-based practice at interview and you'll be fine

Well, you see, the great thing about Binaric Therapy is it will either work, or it won't. If you believe enough it will work, if it doesn't work, then it's you blocking the flow of Binaric Energy.

The Binaric Motto is "Do. Or Do not. There is no try."

My Mum had breast cancer and was very lucky to be treated at the wonderful Marsden. She found complimentary therapies useful. Outside of just curing someone's body the good bits of the NHS have more of a holistic approach which recognises the mental and physical strain put you under. Complimentary therapies can help people find peace and relaxation at a worrying time when they're having very invasive and depersonalising things done to them.

Incidentally just had a further look. It's going to cost £4,000 a year. And it's not being funded by the NHS, it comes under the Macmillan remit. They fund staff in other organisations, (inc the place I work). So it's being funded by a cancer charity which is pretty clear it offers this sort of support.

Yep. Definitely 100% charity funded, in the job description. You can all unclutch your pearls now.

Rafa

I didn't say it was better than any of those things did I, of course the money should always go towards the best quality of medicines, surgeries, proven techniques etc, I'm not an idiot, obviously reiki is not the best source of funds

All I was saying is that for some people, it might make them feel a bit better (placebo) and they've obviously made this decision for a reason so it is what it is really.

But however it's funded, if it doesn't work, what place does it have on NHS premises?

We have an NHS homeopathic hospital in Glasgow, talking of waste-of-money woo-wank.

There are loads of drugs dispensed by the nhs that don't 'work' - if you mean 'contain active ingredients that do things' ?

Like antidepressants, for nearly everyone it's just a placebo - which is very powerful and does 'work' if you believe that 'feeling better' is the goal

Celtic, okay, so we are not going to allow charities to do things on NHS premises unless there is a clinical need. Even if it makes the patients more comfortable or relaxed? Let's get rid of all those toys out of the children's hospitals then...

They're not just advertising to make people "comfortable and relaxed" though. Titles such as "Healer" are misleading.

Not pearl clutching, Booyaka. I'm a palliative care specialist nurse. I've observed over many years that some few complementary therapies can play a part in patient's treatment (as opposed to homeopathy which absolutely can't).
Note I said 'some' complementary therapies though. Others are complete bollocks and should get no funding, whether that be Nhs or charities.

I'm not entirely sure that 95% of antidepressants/ antidepressant usage is placebo. Are the sides effects also placebo? Or the withdrawal? And you've mentioned that same 'fact' twice which strikes me as someone wanting someone to bite. Oh, which I gave. Bugger.

Only saying it because someone said about the nhs should only prescribe treatments that clinically 'work' and loads don't (anti-d's is the biggest I can think of)

Its a fact, honest

See 'Cracked' by James Davies

Yeah, I understand that homeopathy is literally doling out placebos. But things like reiki can be incredibly relaxing for people who are having a very hard time relaxing. If it was coming from NHS funding then I would probably agree. But when it comes from a charity and it is something that patients actually want then I can't see the problem. And if people hadn't said they wanted it or if they didn't use it I doubt they'd have it.

If patients are telling cancer charities this is what they want I don't see why they shouldn't have it because some people disapprove. And I don't see why they shouldn't have it in a convenient location where it's all already been funded.

95% is fact? From what source? It doesn't seem to fit with the reviews I have read previously.

Is it possible that there's confusion between antidepressants usage and antidepressant usage in mild depression?

"than the first: it concluded that the new wave of antidepressants heralded as wonder drugs –Prozac, Seroxat (Paxil in the US), Lustral (Zoloft), Dutonin (Serzone), Cipramil (Celexa) and Effexor –worked no better than dummy pills for the vast majority of patients. There were about 10 to 15 per cent of people, the extremely depressed, for whom these pills worked in a very minor way (about 4 points better than placebos on the Hamilton Scale), but this meant, as Kirsch pointed out, that ‘85 to 90 per cent of people being prescribed antidepressants are not getting any clinically meaningful benefit from the drug itself’. •"

Direct quote above, I'd gone up to 95% in my head (I think that's about a later bit in the chapter).

Cracked by James Davies, the well known fount of all psychiatric knowledge. Known for his research on mental health and anti depressant use

I don't think it's a case of people disapproving, it's about priorities. Charities are accountable for where their money is spent. People donating for research and treatment may not be happy if their money is not being put towards these purposes.

Why don't you like the book?

He lays out why they don't clinically work discussing all the clinical trials that prove they don't.

no he cherry picked some trials to show the point he was trying to sell. He used pseudoscience to push his agenda and sell his book.

It isn't a very accurate representation of the actual science AFAIK

Nope, he discusses every clinical trial and interviews all the top psychiatrists who say it's true.

And then the point is proved by NICE (who also say it's true)

And then they ask the psychiatric community if they're going to stop and most say no because of the placebo effect. And he then goes on to say it's a multi billion industry so draw your own conclusions.

The entire psych community know this, your average Joe doesn't.

Even my GP knows this as he talked to me about prescribing it to my daughter. He said that obviously it only works as a placebo but of course it would still work to her.

Looking at that job description, I really don't think that a charity is funding it - the role says it reports into the Macmillan Lead Nurse - it's the lead nurse role within the NHS, that has been/or is being funded by Macmillan. I think usually unless the job role has Macmillan in the title they don't have an association with it.