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?

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.

Every clinical trial? O rilly? And every 'top psychiatrist' says they don't work? Yes dear. He's not even a scientist, he's an anthropologist.

Yes, he can still read a clinical trial

Or quote Nice or the bmj when they do.

No idea why you're being snarky when you've not read it or his interviews with head of psych at Stanford, the guy who wrote dsm 5 etc

Why don't I like the book?

I don't have the time, headspace or inclination to explain.

Ah yes. The fallback position of the uninformed: an academic said something or it was in an academic journal so it must be true. You do realise academics rarely agree with each other and journals will cover articles which have directly conflicting conclusions? And that if you look hard enough you can probably find an academic who will agree with any old shite?

Yep, I've found remarkably little disagreement over this or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Kirsch (who he quotes extensively) goes on to say that he thinks that anti-d's will be looked back on like we look back at blood-letting. That's a cheery thought.

Binary, can I just say you are brilliant.

Yeah. I can find disagreement quite easily. You might also want to note that Kirsch's specialism is placebo medicine and he has his own agenda to push which is primarily promotion of the use of placebos which is not currently medically lowed either here or in the states.

This article doesn't agree with him, and also points to faults in the clinical trial process which could have led to his conclusions.

healthland.time.com/2012/01/18/new-research-on-the-antidepressant-versus-placebo-debate/

This one also has another academic criticises Kirsch's research as it does not accurately reflect antidepressant prescribing:

www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20080227/antidepressants-no-better-than-placebo

More criticism of Kirsch here: slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/

I can carry on. But yeah, basically saying that you've read one book, uncritically accepted it and present it's premise as being an indisputable fact and avoiding the fact there are arguments to the contrary is generally the sign of someone who knows fuck all about what they're talking about.

Whether antidepressents are genuinely effective or not is completely beside the point on this thread.

Evidence pointed towards them working...new evidence suggests otherwise.

They key word here is EVIDENCE and all science is only as good as the latest results indicate. This is not a weakness, it is a strength. Science and medicine changing it's mind if and when data changes is how progress happens.

There is NO evidence (and never has been) that Reiki works. Not only that, the claims it makes...."channelling energy into the patient".....is about the stupidest, least scientific thing imaginable.

It is utter gobbledegook which involves LYING to vulnerable, ill people.

Does the Reiki "therapist" say, "Well, Mrs Bloggs, I am going to channel healing energy into you even though this is impossible according to all known physics and laughed at by anyone with a science PhD"? No. They say, "Science can't explain how this works" - which immediately implies that it DOES work, which is a crock of shite.

It's also worth mentioning yet again on this type of thread that "doesn't work beyond the placebo effect" does not mean that there is a quantifiable or consistent placebo effect on every patient. In most cases it won't work at all. It simply means that the placebo effect is factored in when analysing data and Reiki etc does not perform any better than the expected placebo findings. In other words....it does not actually work at all.

Talking therapies, relaxation, massage, meditation are all good and they can be utilised to help people without LYING to them about "healing energies".

I am not OK with the NHS employing liars and idiots.

JeffsAnArsehole

You are displaying amazing confirmation bias here. You read one book, snatch at it's findings and fail utterly to properly research any counterarguments.

Not wise.

It is my distinctly tin-hatty opinion that 'woo' gets such a bad rap because the powers that be don't want the general public to lose faith in corporate-run Western medicine.

No. Woo gets a bad rap because it is unscientific bullshit.

And, er, this thread is about such bullshit being available on the NHS which doesn't really fit with your conspiracy theory.

I am not OK with the NHS employing liars and idiots

Amen - this shite should not be able to use the NHS label. It also sounds like the 'therapist' will be expected to obtain donations from patients and/or families for this 'treatment'. The job description reads like you are expected to meet sales targets.
The post appears to be funded by a charity - could be Macmillan or the trust's own charity. I wonder who gets the donation money?

Placebo effect works even when you know it is placebo. Can the woo and eat aspirin.

The placebo effect is going up in the US but not other countries such as the UK.its getting harder to get drugs through clinical trials due to this (apparently, I admit I only read the one article and not for this thread!). First hypotheses on those findings is that its the effect of heavily marketing drugs in the US.

I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but I do think it's interesting that the profiteering medical industry has created changes in its audience which then in turn effects the drug companies themselves.

I haven't "failed to research counter arguments". The bmj and nice back the findings in multiple articles which you can easily find online. Why would I do your research for you? I'm happy with what I know, if you think you know different good luck to you, how fabulous you've carried out your own research

Booyooka - the first two articles you've posted agreed with Kirsch (and the writer of Cracked) - didn't you read them

The last article is written on a crackpot site, so unfortunately there's no point in reading it.

Perhaps stick to articles from the BMJ? Clinical trials discussed by Nice or the fda?

I don't see those articles as agreeing with Kirsch at all. They are a critique of his work in the context of the rest of the available science.

What am I supposed to be looking for with NICE? The only thing that I can find in pages of evidence is a statement that they say there is unequivocal evidence that anti-depressants have a statistically significant benefit over placebo. I can't see to tally that up with what you are saying their position is.

Well, perhaps I might do if you had actually posted links to anything from Nice or the BMJ or clinical trials? You know, if you could come up with these unequivocal statements that antidepressants almost always don't work beyond a placebo effect? But you can't because you probably haven't read anything from those sources and the type of article you are talking about probably doesn't exist.

The fact that you read those articles as supporting Kirsch shows how little you actually understand about the subject you're talking about. You're making a bit of a fool of yourself TBH.

And as someone said, you are showing a massive confirmation bias. The last article is from a blog, but it has links to several articles which dispute Kirsch. It is no more or less reliable than your own book which has a number of references to cherry picked articles taken out of context and one or two people's conspiracy theories. Yet because the book says what you want to believe you are lending it a credence that you don't lend to people who aren't saying what you want to hear.

If you can link me to the supposed NICE guidance and BMJ editorial (NOT a theoretical academic article) confirming Kirsch and Davies view on antidepressants then I might have time for you.

But going 'Oh, oh, but I read this book, and the guy in the book said everybody agrees with him and he quoted a few impressive names and he works at a University so it must all be true' makes you sound like a credulous dick. And you are being extremely insulting to people with mental health problems as these views lead along the road to the 'there's nothing wrong with you, it's all in your head' school of thought.

Incidentally, you may want to bear in mind in future that reading one book and accepting it unquestionably doesn't make you an expert on a topic with the capability of lecturing others. And assuming it does just makes you look foolish.

When my pal had cancer she signed up for all the alternative therapies offered by the centre she attended. The reflexology she loved and the talks given on make up by a local dept store, not to mention the bag loads of high end freebies. She felt the mistletoe injections helped her with the side effects of chemo.

She drew the line at Aural Therapy. She attended one thinking it would be a group session. It turned out to be a one to one session with a "therapist" who encouraged her to shout and scream at her cancer. She came to visit me straight after and we laughed until we cried and had a few glasses of wine to help her get over the traumatic morning she had.

I suppose you have to take the good with the bollocks.

Happily friend is well now many years later and we still have a laugh about it.

Yabvu. It's a great therapy that helps many and has zero side affects.

It's not a therapy because it is all made up. No side effects, and no effects, either

Cancer research says this. It might help with pain, stress and hopelessness and aid relaxation. More research needs to be done. But some people want it, and it's charitably funded. Don't see the big deal.

^There is no scientific evidence to prove that Reiki can prevent, treat or cure cancer or any other disease. But many healthcare professionals accept Reiki as a useful complementary therapy that may help to lower stress, promote relaxation and possibly help reduce some types of pain.

General studies of Reiki

In 2008 UK researchers carried out a review of studies into Reiki for any medical or psychological condition. They looked at 9 randomised clinical trials that used Reiki.

2 trials found helpful effects of Reiki in people with depression but another trial did not
1 trial found that Reiki seemed to help to reduce pain and anxiety
2 other trials seemed to show that Reiki and distant Reiki reduced stress and hopelessness.
1 trial showed that Reiki did not seem to reduce anxiety and depression in women having breast biopsy
The researchers stated that all the trials were small and there is no strong evidence that Reiki is an effective treatment for any condition.

A 2009 review by Canadian researchers looked at 12 trials and they found that 9 of the trials showed that Reiki had significant helpful effects but the quality of 11 of the studies was poor.

Reiki for pain control

A Canadian study in 2003 looked at whether Reiki could control pain in people with advanced cancer. People did have a significant reduction in pain after Reiki treatment but the study was small and had only 20 patients.

Therapeutic touch to treat pain review

In 2008 another review looked at 24 studies using therapeutic touch to treat pain. 3 trials used Reiki. Overall, the review found that people who had the touch therapies had less pain than people who did not have the therapies. Trials carried out by more experienced touch practitioners seemed to give better results in pain reduction. Reiki also seemed to give greater benefit than other types of touch therapy.

The researchers in the 2008 review suggested that more research should be done into whether experienced practitioners or certain types of touch therapy can give better pain reduction. 2 of 5 studies looking at painkiller use supported the claim that touch therapies lowered painkiller use.

You can read about this touch therapy review on the Cochrane Library website.

Further research

We need to do large randomised clinical trials before we really know how much Reiki can help people with cancer. An American clinical trial is currently looking at the effects of Reiki healing in men with prostate cancer.

You can see the details of this trial on Reiki in prostate cancer on the American National Centre of Complementary and Alternative Medicine website (NCCAM).^

Hmm. I have been to that particular hospital's breast cancer clinic many times (I don't have breast cancer, but under went genetic counselling / testing for the BRCA gene after it was confirmed that my mum's early breast cancer and grandmother's early death from ovarian cancer were linked through this.

My mum, when she was ill, did aromatherapy and other alternative therapies - though not on the NHS. Whatever helped her and helped her deal better with the terror were just fine by me - as long as it was on top of and not a replacement for the actual medical treatment, which is the actual thing that's going to save your life, if it can be saved.

But I don't agree that kind of thing should be available on the NHS - not when other critical areas are so woefully underfunded.

Has anyone seen that Mitchell and Webb "Homeopathic A&E" clip? Love it :)

These views absolutely do not lead me along the road of 'it's all in your head there's nothing wrong with you'

Couldn't be further from the truth

Instead what you've just proved is that you think the placebo effect is only for thickies whereas I think it's a completely worthwhile and proven effect.

You are the one criticising people with mental health issues, which is disgraceful by the way.