> -----Original Message----- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:10 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Prayers do not influence recovery from heart > cathereterization > > I don't think they know why it worked, but I'd call 65% significant. I > mean, imagine yourself at a hospital, and you are told that guided > imagery may possibly improve your odds by 65%? I'd sign up... > > I do note though that the stuff that worked required that patients > know about it. So yeah, it may well be one big placebo effect. But for > a 65% improvement in my odds I'd take a placebo, whether I understand > how it works or not. Matter of fact, I have made something of a hobby > of reading the patient information packet and you know what, 100% of > the ones I was taking last year said that themethod of action was not > understood.
But you've made the clinical case there - the method of action may not be understood but it ALWAYS works (tested via double blind studies). Until these therapies pass that trail they're statistically significant but not clinically so. One way therapeutic touch (which is a misnomer since no physical touching is involved) has been tested is to have professional practitioners apply the therapy and have skeptics seem to apply the therapy (just hold their hand over the patient for example). The practitioners claim that they can "feel" illness and must focus on those feelings, the skeptics felt nothing. However the benefits in both cases were the same. Of course after the fact the practitioners claim that the skeptics were, in fact, doing the therapy "without knowing it" (which begs the question if somebody that doesn't how to do it is doing it just as well why would I pay you?) ;^) In a celebrated single-blind study done by a elementary school girl Theraputic Touch practitioners were asked to determine, without seeing, if they could determine when a hand was placed under their hand. If, indeed, they could "feel" the life energy of a patient this should have been no problem - they weren't able to beat chance however. So... if practitioners can't determine when they're actually working on a person and if skeptical, unskilled posers can produce the same effect it seems to lead in the direction that the mechanism of the therapy isn't effective, it's something else about it (or about similar things in general). I think the most effective study (which hasn't been done to my knowledge with therapeutic touch) would be to apply the therapies while the patients were unconscious (and, of course, not apply anything to others). Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:165006 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
