I think people should be careful doing Reiki

[lottieandmia22]

This post assumes a belief in spirituality so I'm not interested in debating that specifically. If you want to please start your own thread.

From what I can see, reiki is channeling occult energy through people's bodies and is therefore potentially risky. It seems to me that new age practitioners will repeatedly say they don't believe in malevolent entities but I think this is naive.

One of my friends told me that his dad was never the same after he became involved with reiki.

And also nearly everyone I've met who has done it was told by the reiki practitioner that they are 'special' have a 'gift' or could easily become a reiki master.

not a cross post. I gave you many links, some of them heavily referenced Try reading a bit more than a few lines of one of them maybe?

“I do think continuing to ask questions is more useful in science rather than thinking you know it all“

Does anyone think they know it all? That would be very silly.

“I do think continuing to ask questions is more useful in science rather than thinking you know it all“

so do I? Which is why I have asked you a very important one, which you won't answer.

Anyone? Anyone who believes in Reiki want to tell me if they think it OK that they claim it cures cancer and MS?

What bit isn't true Bert, that evidence shows that acupuncture works? Or that sometimes belief trumps evidence?

to be clear - I don't believe in reiki, dowsing, homeopathy etc

but with acupuncture, surely it must work a similar way to massage, or like when you press that bit of your ear to reduce the pressure when you are on an aeroplane?

I mean, it uses an instrument and that actually touches your body? I admit it's because my non-woo anaesthetist friend is fine with it - and she is scientific obvs so I thought that made sense?

And answer my question: the reiki society claims it can cure cancer and MS. Are you ok with that claim? Do you think that is acceptable?

No because it is unproven. However I don't believe it impossible that people's cancer and MS may have been healed whilst undergoing reiki.

You'd have to be pretty silly to get into it at all.

so do I? Which is why I have asked you a very important one, which you won't answer.

Won't? I just have, in my previous post. Patience is required if you truly want answers. I seems I cannot read or type fast enough to satisfy your definition of answering a question.

However I don't believe it impossible that people's cancer and MS may have been healed whilst undergoing reiki

Of course its not impossible that while they were getting reiki, actual treatment cured their cancer. The reiki didn't though, did it?

It is impossible that anyones MS was "healed" though. It's not curable.

So you think its just unproven, not that it is not possible?

“However I don't believe it impossible that people's cancer and MS may have been healed whilst undergoing reiki.”

Do you mean to say it could be cured because of the reiki? You need to make your point clear. I think you’re scared to make a plain statement in case you want to try weasel out of it later.

It is impossible that anyones MS was "healed" though. It's not curable

Not curable yet. Not enough is known.

So you think its just unproven, not that it is not possible?

Yes, it's efficacy is unproven. One way or the other. Until it is categorically shown not to be, I would still consider its efficacy possible.

Unproven is not the same as disproved.

Meta, they see no ethical implications and often what they recommend does have the desired effect without contraindications.

Well as things like MS and cancer can naturally go into remission for long periods of time, it would be really hard to tell

Meta, they see no ethical implications and often what they recommend does have the desired effect without contraindications

They see no ethical consideration with lying to patients and giving them sugar pills? Blimey. That is worrying.

Yes, it's efficacy is unproven. One way or the other. Until it is categorically shown not to be, I would still consider its efficacy possible

You consider it possible that a random person waving their hands over you could cure you of an incurable disease? Seriously?

Dionne I do think there is an ethical implication if this is advised through the NHS. I don't think the NHS should direct patients to private practitioners. Equally I think funding medicine which does not stand up to Empirical study is questionable when/if within the NHS. I like to think what the NHS invests in treatment which has been scientifically been proven to work. Because it is a publicly funded body. Research should be separate to this.

You consider it possible that a random person waving their hands over you could cure you of an incurable disease? Seriously?

Possible because it has not been proven impossible.

"
What bit isn't true Bert, that evidence shows that acupuncture works? Or that sometimes belief trumps evidence?"
Both.

Dionne and if you feel it is belief that is curing it, belief is free. It doesn't need to be funded through the NHS. Since the NHS is there for people regardless of their belief or lack of it.

Possible because it has not been proven impossible

so anything is possible until proven impossible? That may sound like a nice attitude but its not one you should approach medicine with.

It's not proven impossible that punching someone in the face could cure them of their belief in silly nonsense like Reiki, so its entirely possible and therefore people should pay be 50 quid for half an hour of it.

Also, most woo has already been proven impossible. I refer you yet again to the basic laws of physics.

Bert, the Vicars et al meta-analysis is evidence that acupuncture works. Your belief that acupuncture doesn't work despite the research shows that for some people belief trumps evidence. As is people believing in homeopathy.

Meta, they don't lie.

Some people only believe what has been and can be proved. They live in a cut and dried world.
Others are content to live with uncertainty, and accept 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy (or something like that)'.

I'm in the latter camp. I've experienced a few inexplicable things, and am content to accept that there are things we don't know and can't understand yet. At every stage of civilisation we have assumed that we are modern now and understand everything.

"Others are content to live with uncertainty, and accept 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy (or something like that)'
I am perfectly content to live with uncertainty-it would be foolish to do otherwise.

I wonder about reiki.

My mum dabbled in it years ago and it IS very relaxing to be on the receiving end of a 'treatment'.

There are known physiological benefits to being relaxed instead of stressed (including faster healing times). So while I don't put too much store by the woo side of it, I don't think it should be entirely dismissed.

meta
so anything is possible until proven impossible? That may sound like a nice attitude but its not one you should approach medicine with.

I refer you to my earlier posts, where I said this,

I think the thing is, Empiricism is not the be all and end all. It works at a societal level. What works at an individual level can fly in the face of the Empirical data. However when advising or treating others the Empirical data cannot be ignored. When regarding yourself it is quite possible your experiences are unusual even highly so.

And this,

Dionne I do think there is an ethical implication if this is advised through the NHS. I don't think the NHS should direct patients to private practitioners. Equally I think funding medicine which does not stand up to Empirical study is questionable when/if within the NHS. I like to think what the NHS invests in treatment which has been scientifically been proven to work. Because it is a publicly funded body. Research should be separate to this.

So whilst I think it is possible that alternative therapies may work, I do not think it is anyone's place to advise them or for public bodies to fund them. Nor is it anyone's place to ridicule alternative therapies, however. I also think people should be free to chose to undertake alternative therapies if they so wish.