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.

Hypnosis has been scientifically shown to do certain things. do you not know that? People have been hypnotised to have surgery when they cannot have traditional anesthtics, it is quite intensively studied.

Isn't it funny that people with the least knowledge often shout the loudest about their opinions.

What was your degree again? What is your understanding of the science based on?

don't you feel a little arrogant saying you won't believe scientists until you and your english degree have reviewed their evidence?)

No. No one is infallible. But equally I am happy to rely on their findings when I have not the time or inclination to review them. However, I accept the risk they might have missed something important.

What was your degree again? What is your understanding of the science based on?

What is your's bfg?

The placebo effect is very powerful

I'm not in a position to say where there is a placebo effect or not, but maybe it would be a good idea if modern medicine used it more. I find the possible side-effects of so many pharmaceuticals quite frightening, so why is it only alternative practitioners who supposed use this powerful tool?

I have to agree with you on that one.

bfg again, just for you

Hypnotherapy is a type of complementary therapy that uses hypnosis, which is an altered state of consciousness.
Hypnosis is widely promoted as a treatment for various long-term conditions and for breaking certain habits. This is despite the fact there's no strong evidence to support these uses.
However, hypnosis does seem to have an effect, though scientists disagree about how it works. Some experts see it as a relaxation technique that uses the power of suggestion or relies on the placebo effect.... Bottom line
Overall, the evidence supporting the use of hypnotherapy as a treatment in these situations isn't strong enough to make any recommendations for clinical practice.
^No firm conclusions can be made, because the studies are generally only small and of poor quality.
That doesn't mean hypnotherapy won't help you – but if you wish to try it, be aware of the relevant safety and regulation issues, outlined below.^
Safety and regulation issues
Hypnotherapy is practised by some doctors, dentists, psychologists and counsellors, but it's also offered by non-professionals with little training. This is because in the UK, hypnotherapists don't have to join any organisation or have any specific training by law.

(www.nhs.uk/conditions/hypnotherapy/)

Similar proven efficacy to Reiki, as far as I can tell.

The NHS is not the arbiter of what is true you know, and its designed for use by people who can't read actual scientific studies. Cutting and pasting out of date info really doesn't help you sound like you know what you are talking about.

What is your's bfg?

Science degree, science postgrad x2, and a career in the sciences.
And yours was what again? An english degree and google?

But equally I am happy to rely on their findings when I have not the time or inclination to review them

How gracious of you. When you have read the science, perhaps you could tell us what is wrong with them?

Wait no, you're not a scientist.

bfg I did not say the NHS was the arbiter of what is true. However they do have a certain amount of recognised authority.

Science degree, science postgrad x2, and a career in the sciences.

Good for you. Maybe I'll defer to your understanding in science if you defer to my understanding of the English language? Sounds like a fair deal to me...

Ok, you listen to me when I tell you that you are categorically wrong about Reiki, and I will listen to you about my spelling and grammar.
Sounds fair.

Ooh and I'd love to see the studies on hypnosis that contradict the NHS stance I quoted. Believe it or not, bfg, I am interested. Despite it being inferred by some posters that I am stupid. Good job I've a thick skin, really, otherwise I'd be put off by the attempts at elitism on here.

Torn on this thread. I don’t believe in reiki or homeopathy or god or aliens or witchcraft etc

But I dislike Dawkins treating people like idiots and crashing into their belief systems without any understanding of why they have them and how they got there. I used to like him but in recent years I think he seems intellectually snobbish in a way that not only unpleasant but also unhelpful.

I struggle more with reiki and homeopathy etc because these beliefs are unlikely to be so deeply culturally and generationally embedded. And so I like others here, really want to point out the lack of evidence.
I would (sort of) agree though with the posters who say it’s unproven not disproven- not because I think that there is anything to back it up but because scientific research provides evidence for or against. It suggests best likelihood based on evidence rather than categorically proves.
Also, anecdotal evidence is evidence. It just on its own is not very convincing evidence. But it is often the start of more scientific testing which may well not support it being anything more than coincidence.
My own anecdotal experience of reiki is that many years ago I thought I was going for a massage and was very non plussed when I lay there and they just waved their hands above me and didn’t touch my aching muscles at all!

I always think of the when I hear about reiki...

I will listen to you about my spelling and grammar.

My studies of the English language were not restricted to spelling and grammar. In linguistics for example, my studies concentrated on language development, social and innate elements, living language and etymology.

bfg, interestingly one cross over between linguistics and science is the study of bio semiotics. So I wouldn't dismiss a linguistic background too readily.

There seems to be a bit of willful misrepresentation of science on this thread and it is not all coming from believers in woo.

Dione could you clarify what you mean?

My studies of the English language were not restricted to spelling and grammar. In linguistics for example, my studies concentrated on language development, social and innate elements, living language and etymology

Great, you can be expert at all those things. But if you could stop pretending that you can read and evaluate all of the science and know better than the scientists who conducted them, that would be really nice.

But if you could stop pretending that you can read and evaluate all of the science and know better than the scientists who conducted them, that would be really nice.

If I have got to make decisions based on the science I've got a choice to be satisfied the scientists are right and they are not always or take the risk and defer to them. In real life what I base my decisions on is a mixture. I have not the time or inclination to investigate everything. However there is no reason why anyone, from any background, might be completely excluded from spotting a flaw in research. The scientists, I trust most, have a certain amount of humility and would be open to receiving comments, simply because I think arrogance can be dangerous and hinder understanding.

Research also can be biased for political reasons. Funding for example. This book is a good read in terms of illustrating this kind of bias.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Ideas-arresting-history-inventions/dp/0553819550/ref=sr11_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1515876768&sr=1-1&keywords=bad+ideas+Robert+winston

I have not the time or inclination to investigate everything

Or the ability. You need to acknowledge that.

I don't have the ability to investigate things that are outside my own speciality, you certainly don't. There are so many people who think they can do their own research and they don't understand the basics, they can't even read the studies of others.

bfg you don't know what my abilities are. People can have surprising abilities and natural, apparently innate, understanding without formal study. I have witnessed this with my child who could read at two. Without being formally taught. Ability cannot be measured, only attainment.

magpie, you’re not doing yourself any favours here. Talking about your “studies” just makes it abundantly clear you don’t know much about anything.

Reading the conclusion on one or two studies does not give you an understanding of anything. You would know this if you were formally trained or even just took a passing interest in reality.

I’m sorry that something must have happened in your life to tether you to this nonsense. The world, the universe is exciting and beautiful enough without making up bullshit and spreading around the internet for equally credulous brains to feed on.

It was enough for me when you were encouraging cancer sufferers to get reiki to cure them “because science doesn’t know everything”. Imagine if someone takes your advice and dies because of it. Appalling.

It was enough for me when you were encouraging cancer sufferers to get reiki to cure them “because science doesn’t know everything”. Imagine if someone takes your advice and dies because of it. Appalling.

Have you even read my posts, Iwas? Where have I done anything of the sort?

By the way, if you had read my posts, you would understand I am receiving (regular NHS) cancer treatment, myself and also that I have categorically said I would not actively encourage anyone to have any alternative therapy.

I said this yesterday @15:40

weeping, what is actually known about Reiki is that it does not appear to be harmful. Regarding people being conned for their money, I believe that is wrong on any level and I have said so upthread.

Regarding treatments, the NHS only tend to mention it being possibly useful as a complimentary or palliative therapy because of the lack of evidence over its efficacy. That is the tack I would take, personally, advising anyone.

However I do believe if people are deemed to have capacity they should be allowed to choose to accept standard (NHS) treatment or not. I say that as someone who is undergoing pretty standard NHS treatment for cancer. Some standard treatments are hard going people should be allowed to withdraw themselves from them.