I guess I need a definition of "clinically significant" as I am thinking in terms of 65% less chance of dying = significant. If you are saying that this is not significant because other people have not been able to replicate it, this is a valid argument, though I don't see it in the articles on this particular study.
I actually doubt that unconcious patients would benefit, as, according to this study, patients seem to need to know that something is being done. I do however think it is significant that some clinicians think that the placebo effect is the biggest factor in most healing. In other words, many drugs are more harmful than sugar pills as they have unknown side effects and are essentially placebos themselves. Would I recommend placebos to someone that has a known lifethreatening conidion though? No... because at that point you need the best-studied solution. Dana On 7/16/05, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----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 > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect Your PC from viruses, hackers, spam and more. Buy PC-cillin with Easy Installation & Support http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=61 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:165200 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
