Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies

Here we go again.

Because he's been in the news lately, I've been writing a lot about the "brave maverick doctor" known as Stanislaw Burzynski who claims to have spectacular results treating normally incurable cancers using something he calls antineoplastons. Unfortunately, the reason Burzynski has featured prominently in the skeptical blogosphere over the last two weeks is because, unfortunately, the Texas Medical Board (TMB) dropped its case against him. Basically, Burzynski got off on a technicality.

For purposes of this post, I don't want to dwell on this case, because I've already pretty much beat it into the ground. I don't even want to visit any patients of Burzynski who trusted him but are dying or have died anyway. Sadly, we've met several of them over the last year, most recently Amelia Saunders. Rather, what I want to concentrate on is the perception of Burzynski by his followers versus the reality, and the way I want to get at that issue by going straight to the source. It just so happens that not too long ago, an alternative medicine rag published an interview with Burzynski, which Burzynski has posted on his very own website. (Hat tip to the reader who pointed this interview out.) The usual self-serving blather is there, of course, but it's the contrast between the picture of Burzynski as a misunderstood scientific and medical genius on par with Pasteur that his followers like to promote. And, of course, this genius is "persecuted" by the dogmatic medical establishment, who only wants to "cut, poison, and burn." Burzynski himself promotes both memes, but particularly the paranoia:

Do you think that understanding in the medical community about your research is improving with time or evolving? Dr Burzynski: Absolutely. Some of the brightest oncologists are working together with us. We have a group of about 100 top oncologists. We are treating patients together with oncologists from all over the world. We are talking about the brightest guys. The rest of the club does not understand what we do at all and hate us. They would like to get rid of us. They hate to see our good results. But this crowd also will change if the breakthrough comes. So at this moment, we have to convert oncologists one by one. Of course, I am giving lectures at the oncology congresses, but only a few of these doctors will pay attention to what I have to say because I am not from a big medical institution. They don’t believe something can come from a small clinic, a small research center. They all assume research must come from a big pharmaceutical company or big institutions. Unfortunately, not much good came from these institutions within the last decade. But a number of doctors are beginning to understand what we do, and the number of those who would like to be trained in our strategy is increasing all the time. We have oncologists coming to us from various countries almost all the time to learn how to use our approach.

This is about as unbelievable a paragraph as I've ever seen. In reality, oncologists shun Burzynski—and rightly so, given that he has yet to publish anything resembling a convincing result suggesting the efficacy of his antineoplastons against cancer. That's not to say he doesn't publish (although he hasn't published anything in a PubMed-indexed journal before 2006, not counting this interview, which is in a journal that should not be PubMed-indexed and isn't even an original research paper anyway). It's painfully obvious from this paragraph that Burzynski doesn't know academic oncologists. None of them whom I've ever met assume that nothing useful can come out of a small clinic or research institute. That's just rank stupidity if Burzynski really thinks that. The reason oncologists don't respect Burzynski is because of how he hasn't show that his treatments work better than conventional treatments—or even that they work at all—and because of the way he abuses patients by charging them huge sums of money to participate in a clinical trial. Those are the reasons legitimate oncologists, at least those familiar with Burzynski, look askance at him. How could they do otherwise? The ones who don't take him seriously are the ones who know him best.

Indeed, one could argue that that's why the FDA and the NCI couldn't work with him. They didn't know him when they agreed to work with him in the 1990s, but as they worked with him over the course of a few years they learned his true nature, leading to an inevitable schism, which taught the NCI a lesson about the consequences of dealing with pseudoscientists. Now here's where we see the sheer arrogance, the sheer ignorance of theman:

Dr Burzynski: I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy. But it was not understood yet at that time that cancer is a disease of the genes. The cancers have names like breast cancer or lung cancer but what is really causing cancer is abnormality in our genes. Now everybody knows about it, but 20 years ago, very few people realized it. The right way to treat cancer is to treat the genes that are causing the cancer. Do not treat just the name of cancer. Every case is somewhat different; that’s why we need to have a personalized approach. We need to identify changes in the genes and treat the genes which are “sick.” If we are successful, then we can have very good results. It’s not so difficult to understand.

When antibiotics were introduced for the first time, they were used for the treatment of infections such as pneumonia or kidney infections or whatever. But after a number of years, the doctors realized that what they need to do is treat microorganisms which are causing the infection rather than the name of infection. Do not treat just pneumonia by the same antibiotics, but identify the germs which cause pneumonia and treat the germs. And then we can have success.

Now the same principles are being applied to the treatment of cancer. We identify the genes which are causing the problem and treat the genes. It may happen that the same genes may cause breast cancer or stomach cancer, and then we would use the same medication for one patient’s breast cancer as well as another’s stomach cancer. Certainly, 20 years ago, this was heresy. And frankly speaking, very, very few medications could work on genes at that time.

I had to choke back a rising bile in the back of my throat as I read this. I mean, seriously, such a combination of arrogance (Burzynski apparently thinking that he really was the first person to think of the idea of personalized therapy and targeting genes for cancer) and ignorance of the entire field of cancer genetics and genomics is breathtaking! Let's put it this way. I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. There's a term called "oncogene," which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer. When do you think this term was first coined? Robert Huebner and George Todaro first coined it in 1969, and the first oncogene, src, was described in 1970, twenty years before Burzynski claims to have understood that cancer is a genetic disease. Has Burzynski ever heard of the term "tumor suppressor gene"? Tumor suppressors are genes that normally put the break on cell growth or other phenotypic changes necessary for cancer. When tumor suppressor function is lacking, cells can become cancerous. The first tumor suppressor gene, the retinoblastoma gene, was characterized in 1986, at least six years before Burzynski's apparent "revelation" that cancer is a "genetic disease." As usual, science was way ahead of Burzynski. In fact, the genetic basis of cancer was suspected at least as far back as 1902, when German zoologist Theodor Boveri proposed the existence of cell cycle check points, tumour suppressor genes and oncogenes. Boveri even speculated that cancers might be caused or promoted by radiation, physical or chemical insults or by pathogenic microorganisms! That's 90—count 'em—90 years before the time when Burzynski claims that it was "not understood yet at that time that cancer is a disease of the genes."

Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article. I couldn't find it on PubMed. His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a "genetic disease" or "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy" and everything to do with antineoplastons. Perhaps Burzynski proposed this "revolutionary" new idea in a peer-reviewed article that's not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn't find it using Google and Google Scholar. (In fact when I entered "Burznski" and "personalized gene therapy" into Google Scholar, I got the article containing the transcript of Burzynski's interview that I'm discussing at the top of the hit list!) The earliest publication by Burzynski that I could find that dealt with genetics at all was one from 2003 entitled, Aging: gene silencing or gene activation?, published in 2003 in—surprise! surprise!—that rag of a vanity journal, Medical Hypotheses.

I will give Burzynski credit for inadvertently making an analogy that has a grain of truth, but even in making that analogy he mangles history. Yes, antibiotics were used to treat specific infections, but that was because it was known which bugs antibiotics killed and which bugs tended to cause which infections. So back in the early days of antibiotics, treatment tended to be more empiric because it wasn't always possible to culture the causative microorganisms. That doesn't mean that antibiotics were being used to treat "pnemonia" or "kidney infections" without little respect to the causative organisms. After all antibiotics are defined as antibiotics on the basis of their ability to kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms! One could draw an analogy in that we now target various genetic abnormalities in cancer much more precisely than ever, in sort of the same way that antibiotics today can be much more specifically targeted to specific organisms causing specific infections than we used to do. It is also true that our considerations of subtypes of cancer are, thanks to the genomics revolution, becoming less organ-specific (i.e., based on what organ the cancer originates in) and more gene signature-specific, but it's a slow process, and the empirical knowledge of how to treat different cancers from different organs is still very useful. We haven't yet developed an organ-independent classification of cancers that is clinically useful, although it is possible that we might succeed in doing so in the next ten or twenty years. If we do, you can be certain that Stanislaw Burzynski will have had nothing to do with it and nothing to do to developing real "personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy."

I could go on and on, picking apart virtually every paragraph of this interview. They're all chock full of howlers like the passage above. But it's getting late, and even Orac needs down time; so I'll look at one last howler. Maybe I'll come back to this article sometime when I'm bored. In the meantime, consider this statement by Burzynski:

The first medication which worked on genes was Herceptin for the treatment of breast cancer. Even today, oncologists will attack you if you try to use Herceptin for something else. But suddenly a year ago, Herceptin was approved for the treatment of stomach cancer. If the patient has abnormality of the gene on which Herceptin works, it can work very well. The crowd of oncologists learns the medicine by heart without understanding of what’s going on. However, they have started to realize that there is a need to identify what is causing cancer in every patient who is coming for treatment and to use the right combination of medications.

Unfortunately, we have a totalitarian approach toward treatment: Everybody should receive the same regimen for the same name of cancer. This is foolish. It contributes to billions of dollars in losses because typically the medications—single medications— work for less than 10% of patients. If you identify which patients will benefit from a particular medication, you can have good results and you can save a lot of money. But unfortunately, this approach still persists. I have been attacked by the Texas Medical Board for going overboard and using a logical, scientific approach toward treatment of the genes.

First off, Herceptin does not exactly "work on genes," and no oncologist would characterize it as doing so. Herceptin is a humanized mouse monoclonal antibody that targets the HER2 protein, which is the product of the HER2 oncogene, which is overexpressed (i.e., too much of it is made) in some breast cancers. It's been enormously successful in that HER2(+) breast cancer used to be considered a very bad actor. It still is a bad actor, but we have a targeted therapy that makes it less so. In any case, if Herceptin is a drug Burzynski defines as "targeting genes," then he's clearly wrong that it's the first one. It was not. Arguably, Tamoxifen was. Tamoxifen, after all, specifically targeted a gene product (the estrogen receptor) in the same way that Herceptin targets HER2, and Tamoxifen has been around since the 1970s. Be that as it may, it is not "heresy" to use Herceptin to treat other forms of cancer besides breast. It is true that Herceptin was first used in breast cancer, but that is because HER2 is frequently overexpressed in breast cancer. As soon as it was discovered that HER2 was overexpressed in other cancers, oncologists and scientists proposed using it for those other cancers. We cancer researchers are very happy to apply new drugs to new cancers if we think they might be useful, but unlike Burzynski we insist on testing them in clinical trials first, to make sure they work.

As for Burzynski's lament that we have a "totalitarian" approach towards treatment, all I can say is that it might seem that way to someone who has a "make it up as you go along" approach, like Burzynski. It's just another example of cranks pulling out the "fascism" gambit when they are told by scientists they are cranks. For instance, the TMB didn't go after Burzynski simply for off-label prescribing where there is a legitimate scientific argument. It went after Burzynski for mixing and matching targeted therapies willy-nilly in a reckless manner. Truly, it was personalized targeted gene therapy for dummies done by dummies.

In the end, it's hard not to be shocked by the combination of self-absorption, arrogance, and downright scientific ignorance that the "hero" of "alternative" cancer therapy demonstrates. I suppose I shouldn't be, but I am. And it takes a lot to shock me these days.

Categories

More like this

This summer I saw mountain lion 3 times out here in the Oregon Coast Range. First sitings for me in 16 years. We've found cougar kills (deer) twice in our property in since 1996. This evening I saw a pileated woodpecker working on an apple. They do that this time of years if the bears have left any on the trees.
OK, nice to break with nature, and where were we? Arrogance of ignorance. Vexing, how it runs the gamut from SB railing at someone's "small brain" to woo-bleatings about "open-mindedness" and let's not forget paradigms. (I'll see you that & go for a quarter, please.) One thing, I got out to the West Coast & saw reference to Reiki and I sure was disappointed when I learned what it was & what it purported to do. You don't even get a decent massage. Someone's likely pointed that out already.
I continue to enjoy the comments of Orac's minions.

@ Krebiozen:
@ LIz:

Interesting about how the diets of small carnivores resemble our own.

I have a very large, male cat- looks like a wildcat- because of his IBD ( oh, I know), he is on a special diet which has helped his symptoms AND vastly improved his coat. He is a luxurious-looking, opulently striped and spotted creature.

The ingredients of his food consist of chicken, brewers' rice, corn, yeast and loads of vitamins and oils. He eats better than I do.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

@HDB

The universe *is* an exciting and special place. Part of that specialness is its regularity — the underlying rules that make some of its behaviours predictable (or at least understandable in hindsight).

I know that and you know that, but some people out there haven't figured it out yet. I would guess this comes back to spiritualism too, and wanting to feel connected to some larger, more meaningful ... thing ... in order to deal with the randomness and cruelty of nature.

Sadly, the exciting and special aspects of the universe do *not* seem to include a special status for the desires of human beings.

Indeed, which was what I was getting at.

@Narad

Substitute “self” for “universe,” and I think you’re closer.

Again, agreed.

@Heliantus

Burzynski is a DOCTOR!

Has anyone actually managed to confirm his credentials? Last I remember, there was doubt about his actual degrees.

@Krebiozen

I have to confess she’s double-bagged in the garbage and headed for a landfill burial. Sentiment be damned, I’m not going to risk another zombie apocalypse scare.

I have to say of all the weird things I've read about on this blog, this one is the weirdest. My apologies about your cat.

@Judith

There was an episode of House in which the Great Dr. House finally diagnosed a dying patient as suffering from some kind of horrid parasite that can only be gotten from foxes. So please keep your distance from the critters, for a variety of reasons.

Hehe, fiction, reality, what's the difference? If it's on TV it must be true!

His anecdotal evidence does not seem to bear out.

But naturally, anecdotes are just fine for you when you want to use them. I think we should nickname you Double Standards Judith.

The ingredients of his food consist of chicken, brewers’ rice, corn, yeast and loads of vitamins and oils. He eats better than I do.

I'm jealous (but not so much)....pretty nice diet.

Alain

Judith,

There was an episode of House in which the Great Dr. House finally diagnosed a dying patient as suffering from some kind of horrid parasite that can only be gotten from foxes.

Thanks for the warning, though the foxes do keep their distance, and I'm always careful handling cadavers, of whatever species. I do find it hard to take House seriously, being familiar with Hugh Laurie's earlier work - such as Fry and Laurie, Jeeves and Wooster etc..

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

His anecdotal evidence does not seem to bear out.

Right but your anecdotal evidence TOTALLY DOES for, you know, reasons.

There was an episode of House in which the Great Dr. House finally diagnosed a dying patient as suffering from some kind of horrid parasite that can only be gotten from foxes. So please keep your distance from the critters, for a variety of reasons.

Hehe, fiction, reality, what’s the difference? If it’s on TV it must be true!

Well, TV with a typical Judith extrapolation. This is House S02E07, and it is not the case that E. multilocularis "can only be gotten from foxes."

@ THS:

I also enjoyex the nature break- yes, urban and suburban animal wildlife.

I suppose I could try my hand at writing a few paragraphs of observations of furry creatures in their native habitat such as those populating overgrown river banks, burgeoning life amongst the variegated,
dense foliage.
Who was that guy in the Evelyn Waugh novel with a newspaper column called "Lush Life" or similarly? Totally hilarious IIRC.
Not today.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

Who was that guy in the Evelyn Waugh novel with a newspaper column called “Lush Life” or similarly? Totally hilarious IIRC.

From "Scoop", right?

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 12 Dec 2012 #permalink

Denice,
Due to my Wisconsin roots I was inculcated with a bit of the John Muir & Aldo Leopold sensibility. Sand County Almanac & Thinking Like a Mountain. (These ideals I can't match.)
My eyes continue to be opened by the comments of the cadre you senior Minions & Shills.

that's: cadre of you senior Minions..

I'm a little envious of these OT diversions going on while I'm sleeping that I come to cold the next day.

Denice,

He is a luxurious-looking, opulently striped and spotted creature.

A Maine Coon by any chance? A neighbor has a Norwegian Forest Cat, which is very similar, a gorgeous creature, more like a lynx than a domestic mog. He thinks he lives at our house, much to his owner's chagrin.

Flip,

I have to say of all the weird things I’ve read about on this blog, this one is the weirdest.

I feel a warm glow of pride.

My apologies about your cat.

I'm OK about her now, even her unexpected resurrection, though I was ridiculously upset when she died. She turned up on our doorstep a couple of years ago, a half-dead stray, with her face almost entirely hairless from fleas and mites. We were unable to catch her to get her to the vet, so we made her a little hut to live in outside, out of the elements, and slowly nursed her back to health. Gradually she gained the confidence to come indoors, and became a house cat of sorts, though she remained afraid of literally everything, and was by no means a lap cat. I'm a sucker for a lame duck (or cat).

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

A kid in the US caught bubonic plague burying a dead squirrel. Just sayin'.

Not generally a fan of the fictional Dr. House. He always half-killed his patients, or watched them half-die, before he figured out was wrong with them.

@Narad, I just asked whether you were Canuck out of curiosity, not because I was relying on my paragraph construction. Whatever nationality you are, I think "dyspeptic" and "curmudgeonly" are appropriate epithets to add.

@AdamG
I know my own anecdotal evidence; I suppose you are right that I shouldn't expect others to be willingly reliant on it, nor should I be reliant on other people's anecdotal evidence based on what I know about mine.

@Krebiozen
What a lovely thing to do for a stray cat.

@All
Happy holidays.

Hi Judith, did you miss my comment pointing out that The Amazing Randi has a cool million dollars waiting for you to prove that you can instantly cure the poison oak rash? There have been a lot of comments so I can see how you missed it. But I wouldn't want you to miss this golden opportunity to not only prove Reiki once and for all, but to pocket a million dollars at the same time!

@Judith - I second LW's comment. If you are so convinced of your own "power" please do apply for the $1mil dollar prize.

Just like Dr. B, all you have to do is "put up or shut up" and put yourself to a real test.

@Narad, I just asked whether you were Canuck out of curiosity, not because I was relying on my paragraph construction. Whatever nationality you are, I think “dyspeptic” and “curmudgeonly” are appropriate epithets to add.

@Judith, Feel my energy.

@Judith, I third LW's comment. "Put up or shut up" and find a new line of work.

"The same with back surgeries. Most patients do just as well if not better with medication, physiotherapy and exercise."

You lying sack of feces, several back surgeons in Toronto told me the same thing, hence no surgery. One even spoke of the history of back surgery in Toronto which led to what he called the "failed back surgery clinic." All the worry aboot hillbilly heroin abuse meant very limited access to painkillers.

And the physioclinic was going to send me to chiroquacks and quackupuncture next. So I stopped going while continuing the stretching I was doing before I saw them and they recommended it...

That you have any sort of practice selling false hope via obviously false means is a sad commentary on Canadian education.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Kreb:

I adopted what I thought was a small, intelligent-looking young cat with intriguing markings but it was actually a giant kitten whose exuberant actviities broke many objects in my place, including a large antique mirror that he flung himself into a fews months on.

I think he is a regular cat but he looks rather wild: he has a longer, narrower face and is rather huge with gigantic ears and feet. ( see images of European wildcat). Doesn't have long hair like the breeds you mention. He has elaborate stripes, swirls, spots and a few rosette-like spots like a wild thing. He's beautiful and knows it.

Another gentleman I know ( not the fox guy) adopted a long-haired stray who was later hit by a car: many tears over her.

@ herr doktor bimler:

Yes, he got the job after the gossip columnist did himself in.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ THS:

I always appreciate your kind words. Where do I send the money?
We minions aim to please.

@ al kimeea:

I am often treated to alt media loons wringing their hands over the current state of education in the western world- most recently @ PRN.

I have no idea why they're upset because the lack of education and critical thinking guarantee enrichment for people who:

provide expensive, un-tested cancer treatment,
discourage vaccination,
fix data and benefit from their folllowers' adulation,
offer un-tested services for physical and psychological ills,,
sell supplements on the internet,
sell ads on their websites,
write up their martyrdom experiences as books,
provide alt media microphones and documentaries for like-minded woo-spreaders,
frighten people about the future and
make a career of sliming SBM

in other words, themselves and their cronies.

It is truly ironic because the dudes most likely to complain have in-adequate educations themselves- and I'm not basing that solely upon their acceptance of bad science ( which after all, can be an act to hawk their own products) BUT
from their generally sub-par usage of language, figures of speech, allusions and construction of their arguments.
They are probably not as bright as their average audience member. Their emotional-manipulation of human weakness is the only place where I see any evidence of sophistication in all of the years I've reviewed this tripe.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

I know my own anecdotal evidence; I suppose you are right that I shouldn’t expect others to be willingly reliant on it

But isn't that precisely what you are doing to people you offer to treat? What can they base their decisions on other than being 'willingly reliant' on your own anecdotal data?

@ Denice Walter

Perhaps he's a Bengal or a Savannah, they can be quite hyperactive and look very much like wildcats. He may even be the offspring of a domestic and a small breed of wildcat.

@ Krebiozen

I applaud you good sir, for your love of you dear departed cat. Some people wouldn't look twice at a stray, let alone one in need of medical care. Personally, I'm a sucker for a stray and have tamed(some are never truly tame) quite a few feral strays in my lifetime. Due to my work with the strays in my area I've also seen some of the cruelties that people can inflict on the little guys, so it truly warms my heart to hear about people taking them in and giving them love.

By shadow1458 (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Excellent point there, AdamG. I think it highlights one of the problems with anecdotalism.

The thing about science is that you have to be able to prove something to others. To do that, you have to put yourself in their shoes (and not the ones attached to a straw man). You have to be able to show them that you've done the work to eliminate known alternative explanations, that you're not biasing your selection, and so on. You also can't trust your personal recall, since you're supposed to be aware that humans are capable of biasing their memories toward their preferred outcome, hence you maintain records of all outcomes, good and bad.

And that's where humility is supposed to come in. If you can't prove it works to someone else using science, that means you haven't proven it to yourself. If you can't eliminate alternative explanations, that means you don't know which explanation is true. If you rely on logical fallacies, that means you're trying to fool others the way you're fooling yourself.

By Bronze Dog (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Hey, @Al Kimeea, did you also call the back surgeons "lying sacks of feces"? I guess that's the difference between the American and Canadian medical systems -- in America any number of back surgeons would have been happy to operate on you for a small consideration of twenty or thirty thousand dollars.

I am sorry that you are in pain, though. What's wrong with your back?

@Judith - why do you need to know? Just wave your hands in the general direction of the patient & your amazing energy healing powers will do the rest, right?

So, when are you signing up for the Randy Challenge?

@Lawrence
Absolutely :)

Whatever nationality you are, I think “dyspeptic” and “curmudgeonly” are appropriate epithets to add.

It's the only appropriate approach in dealing with occultists.

Why hellooo Judith, no I didn't call the back surgeons lying sacks of feces because they aren't selling bovine feces for healthcare.

Read and meditate on what Bronze Dog said just a few comments up.

I'm sure there are back surgeons here who would operate just as there are docs who push pills.

Why don't you tell me what is wrong with my back, don't you claim distance healing and such?

By al kimeea (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

There is nothing wrong with curmudgeons. Without them, we would be unable to make rude limericks about "gudgeon" and "high dudgeon".

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Judith, Why don't you listen to what Bronze Dog says? Don't you understand what he wrote? Is it too complicated for you to understand the meaning of those words? What gives?

If you rely on logical fallacies, that means you’re trying to fool others the way you’re fooling yourself.

Patients seek care to get real medical help, not to be made fools. I am rather enjoying an energy doc such as yourself proving to be a fool here on RI for all to see.

Whatever nationality you are, I think “dyspeptic” and “curmudgeonly” are appropriate epithets to add.

So you can't provide us with evidence of any of your claims, you take money from your patients targets for worthless services that they could get elsewhere for free (yarn shop), and you object and insult when others get angry at you for exploiting patients. Yeah, uh huh, at this point, I have little objection to Narad saying any dam.n thing he wants to say to you, dear Judith.

Gee, Judith responded to Lawrence but totally ignored his question about the Randi challenge, as she ignored my comment and the two that supported it.

I wonder why. If I had the psychic ability to heal poison oak rash with a wave of my hand, I'd run, not walk, to meet his challenge. That million dollars would make a big difference in my lifestyle, and having The Amazing Randi *confirm* my abilities... Well, I can't even imagine what that would do.

Of course I don't have any psychic abilities, but I guess if I were pretending that i did, and someone urged me to try the challenge, I'd probably just pretend the question didn't exist. That can't be why *Judith* is ignoring the question, though, because she's not a fake.

Maybe she's so wealthy that another million more or less just isn't worth bothering about.

"In other words carrying on a debate with an occultist is not like carrying on a debate with a person of honor and intellectual dignity. Before the actual debate can begin, you must get him to admit that he is engaged in a debate instead of a demonstration of your moral or psychopathological inferiority, and you must show your audience, if any, what kind of a devious and dishonest scoundrel you are dealing with."

Judith, Narad's smarter than you.

Judith won't acknowledge the points Bronze Dog and I made because she knows that we're right. She acknowledges that Burzynski's anecdotes are not sufficient, and further acknowledges that it's not reasonable to expect people to buy into any anecdotal evidence.

That she is able to recognize this, yet still preaches reiki (and accepts money for these services), is further evidence that she's a pure scammer.

What is it like to know that you're intentionally misleading people for personal gain, Judith? Or are you at the point where you've told the lie so many times that you believe it yourself?

@S

Judith, Narad’s smarter than you.

My cat is smarter than Judith - it doesn't believe in Reiki.

It also is more honest, providing affection in return for food, a straightforward deal where we are both aware of what we are getting.

Judith won’t acknowledge the points Bronze Dog and I made because she knows that we’re right.

Related to this is the flitting from point to point and acting as though those that didn't work out (essentially everything) never happened in the first place. The fallback is then a return to the Great Soul routine and trying to cozy up to those she perceives as more sympathetic characters.

In fairness, at least Judith has hung around to argue her point.

Bo however.

Bugger, I was going to say something about jabs. But my smallpox inoculation in 1978 has given me short and long term memory loss.

Luckily I've never suffered from smallpox but I put that down to the superbly efficient soap.

My memory loss has nothing to do with my spectacular intake of Real Ales.

@Al Kimeea
I thought you called me a lying sack of whatever because I had the temerity to suggest that exercise and physio etc. were just as effective for backpain as surgery -- just like your doctors did. If you think that a surgeon here will fix it, why don't you pursue that route?

@MarkL
Someone somewhere suggested that cats invented Reiki and that they were very particular about it :) I once read a book called Qu whose author included a variety of energy exercises, one of which involved the use of a cat. If you did the exercise right, the cat would purr; if you did it wrong, it would scratch you and run away. I never tried the exercise.

Really, lighten up everybody. What we are talking about here is an exercise between consenting adults. If for instance I were to encounter Al, I would see that he was in pain, and I would suggest to him that he try Reiki. I would say to him that it works for some people but not for others and that you never know whether it works for you until you try it. If he agreed I would wave at him for a few minutes and then ask him how he felt. I might ask him to rate the pain before and after from 0 to 10. If he felt no difference, I might wave at him a few minutes longer, and ask again. If he still felt no difference, we would smile at each other and acknowledge that it didn't work, and we would both go on our way. If he felt better, say he said that the pain was a 7 before and is now a 4, I would wave at him a while longer, until he said 0, or 1 or 2. Then I would say cheerio to him, and suggest that if he found that the treatment was useful, and he wanted to do more, he could contact me. If he actually felt enough relief to go down on the scale to anywhere between 0 and 2, that pain relief would probably last at least a few hours if not days. In the meantime he could read up on Reiki and choose whether or not to contact me again. Would it be a net gain to him to be in less pain? Would it be a loss to him in any way to try?

According to the NIH, "Reiki appears to be generally safe, and no serious side effects have been reported."

"a book called Qi"

Of course there are no side effects. Reiki doesn't actually do anything.

How has that escaped you?

@Judith

According to the NIH, “Reiki appears to be generally safe, and no serious side effects have been reported.”

Seriously?

You can read this (and paste it here) without bursting out laughing at the utterly farcical nature of that? Surely the words "serious" & "side" are superfluous in that sentence?

Really, lighten up everybody. What we are talking about here is an exercise between consenting adults.

When you explicitly bill it as "for entertainment purposes only," then you can label it in this fashion.

I have experienced Reiki, and you have not. It's as simple as that.

@Narad
I might take up your suggestion. So what do you say, @Al Kimeea, for your entertainment, would you try it?

Really, lighten up everybody.

You may think that this is all in fun and just a little disagreement between consenting adults, but I disagree. You are selling ill people a bogus service. That is not harmless. It's not nice to sell people a product that doesn't and has N-E-V-E-R been shown to work. That's called health fraud, in my opinion.

What we are talking about here is an exercise between consenting adults.

Define 'consent'? Why do you think you are qualified to determine if an ill patient is able to give consent?

According to the NIH, “Reiki appears to be generally safe, and no serious side effects have been reported.”

@Judith, You neglected to mention this statement from the same NIH-cited study,

The study showed that neither direct touch nor distant Reiki affected pain or any of the other outcome measures. The researchers concluded that adults with fibromyalgia are unlikely to benefit from Reiki. They noted that energy medicine therapies such as Reiki should be rigorously studied before being recommended to patients with chronic pain.

The study based its primary outcome on subjective pain. The secondary outcomes were physical and mental functioning, medication use, and health provider visits.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18991519

RESULTS:

Neither Reiki nor touch had any effect on pain or any of the secondary outcomes. All outcome measures were nearly identical among the 4 treatment groups during the course of the trial.

Find another line of work, Judith.

I have experienced Reiki, and you have not. It’s as simple as that.

I have experienced it and I say it is a bogus, predatory medical practice, which should be banned. "It's as simple as that."

According to that study, Reiki has no effect on pain, physical functioning, mental functioning, medication use, or the number of health provider visits. There is nothing else left for it to effect. It's bogus.

@S
Nothing works on fibromyalgia.

It's still a matter between consenting adults. You can say no to it. You can allow others the right to choose.

@Judith

I have experienced Reiki, and you have not. It’s as simple as that

No Judith, that should read "I haven't experienced Reiki, and neither have you".

You are either a liar or delusional (I suppose you could possibly be both), no-one has ever experienced Reiki, because it isn't real. Even NCCAM admits that there is no scientific evidence for its efficacy.

It’s still a matter between consenting adults. You can say no to it. You can allow others the right to choose.

Would you characterize three-card Monte in the same fashion?

@ shadow1458:

Thank you for de-lurking.

My cat is much more massive looking than those cats and has a mix of patterns: stripes and swirls like a tabby, spots like those you mention and rosette patterns ( spots within a larger circular outlined spot). He's nearly 20 lbs, muscular and tall.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

You can allow others the right to choose.

Well sure, just like people can choose to buy whatever used car they desire. However, if the person selling the car was being fraudulent about their product, that wouldn't be ok with you, would it?

I would say to him that it works for some people

This statement is precisely what I'm talking about. When you tell this to people, you are lying to them. You've already told us that the only evidence you have for this statement is anecdote, and you agreed that people shouldn't be "reliant on other people’s anecdotal evidence."

How, then, are you different from the used car salesman who lies about the condition of their vehicle?
You're basically claiming that a salesperson can lie about their product in order to sell it, because the transaction is occurring between "consenting adults."

Consent alone is not sufficient. It must be an informed consent.

Nothing works on fibromyalgia.

Why? What's the theoretical underpinning? As we know, Bengston "can cure cancer" but not warts. No explanation is given for this, even within the internal spiritualist/fake-physics framework. Domancic quite proudly advertises that the so-called method makes "every illness curable," so what's now special about fibromyalgia?

(Amusingly, Domancic's primary advertising site, which does in fact target the U.S., is hosted in the same place as "Is Anybody Down," a reference that MSII will likely get, although it's not patently absurd in this case.)

Let me just reinforce the need for an answer to this "why fibromyalgia" question. From Domancic's own marketing copy,

Supported with documented results both medically and scientifically, the Domancic Method of Bioenergy Therapy has effectively treated many “incurable” diseases including Diabetes, MS, Parkinson’s, Gangrene, Alzheimer’s, Asthma, Arthritis, Hepatitis C, tumors, effects on stroke victims, Sinusitis and many other undesirable conditions.

Gangrene and sinusitis? No problem. Fibromyalgia? What do you think we are, miracle workers?

OK, I can no longer control this mirth.

The therapist helps jump start the immune system so the body can heal itself.

Shooting a little extra current from the cosmos into the immune system is, of course, a really bright idea when it comes to autoimmune disorders such as those purported to be treated above.

My cat [...] doesn’t believe in Reiki.

Our cats are quite insistent that field-manipulating movements of hands in the vicinity of an aura is no substitute for actual hands-on contact with their fur.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

We might ask: what's the harm?

Reiki doesn't sound bad.
Here's the huge problem with ANY unproven treatment that makes promises about cures or assisting with problems:

people often experience inertia in persuing SB treatment for serious concerns- a possible malignancy, cardiac problems, symptoms of mental illness- they become hemmed in by fear. There may be denial or wishful thinking that the situation might improve all on its own- all of which leads to delay. Many illnesses progress rapidly beyond easy treatment.

Alt med treatments that promise help -EVEN if it is carefully worded or very mild- speak directly to the inertia that avoids SBM and realistic self-assessment, adding additional time to the process.They're telling people that help is available OUTSIDE of SBM. Perhaps hopeful patients jump to the conclusion that alt med may be ENOUGH in of itself- SBM is superfluous. Does anyone say OTHERWISE? No, they promise a gateway into the unknown miracles and mysteries of the universe. Science hasn't ALL the answers, they say.

Of course, they may protect themselves with a disclaimer but that doesn't protect patients.

I hear many criticisms about how SBM is corrupt or useless by alt med advocates who simultaneously recommend nutritional treatments ( Natural News today: the DSM-5 article says that mental illness is basically a nutritonal issue, the experts are wrong et al).

Alt med adds more time to the delay in finding appropriate treatment.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Narad,

"Is Anybody Down" as discussed on Popehat?

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Our cats are quite insistent that field-manipulating movements of hands in the vicinity of an aura is no substitute for actual hands-on contact with their fur.

My eldest is firmly of the opinion that the latter is just foreplay for the former, which is why I have a stockpile of topical clindamycin and some oral doxycycline in reserve. Maybe it has to do with the bottle-raising.

@Denice

Alt med adds more time to the delay in finding appropriate treatment.

Quite. That delay in seeking real treatment.

So Alt Med kills more patients than it saves (given that 1>0)

edit: That delay in seeking real treatment can kill/

“Is Anybody Down” as discussed on Popehat?

Yup. Bulletproof hosting, although, of course, it's not really "offshore" in this case.

I am beginning to suspect that Judith weighs the same as a duck.

Other things that Judith's preferred modality works for, from Domancic Central:

N. has improved on his spelling tests, and his Spanish and piano teachers say he has been performing much better. He has also begun to take initiative and has started to sleep in his own bed.

Judith, You're messing with people's minds when you lie to them about the cause (bad energy) of their symptoms and then sell them bogus energy treatments. Do you also enforce upon them how much better they look and feel after your treatments?

N. has improved on his spelling tests, and his Spanish and piano teachers say he has been performing much better. He has also begun to take initiative and has started to sleep in his own bed.

N may have very well benefited from the attention and human interaction, especially from someone anyone who treated him/her in a pleasant, or even non-abusive, non-neglectful manner. You have no evidence that any special Reiki energy helped N. You should teach people to spend quality time with their kids, instead of this bogus Reiki garbage.

Narad,

I just checked out the Domancic website. I read these two testimonials and got sick to my stomach.

“My cancer patient had some great news, the metastases on the brain vanished within a month, tumor on the lung is shrinking and the metastases on his kidney has gone as well! the gentleman is feeling well enough to go on a holiday with his family for 10 days! “
- Level 3 Therapist

-I am so honored to tell the results of my client with Acute Leukemia. She was diagnosed on Dec. 4. She began the Bioenergy sessions on Jan 7. After a session of 4 days, she went for a blood test. Her leukocyte count went from .3 on Jan 4 to 3.5 on Jan 11. Normal is 4.0. Her hemoglobin was almost normal too. Her oncologist was very pleased.”

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Another wave of nausea:

“I’ve just had an incredible result. A woman I treated distance for breast cancer, is cancer free. Her doctor watched the tumor shrink, asked what she did and she gave him my card. I did only two 4 day sessions, one, only days after she was diagnosed and the other about 6 weeks later when he told her there was just a tiny bit left. Very exciting.”

- Level two therapist

These people are seriously dangerous.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

S,

And I bet this kid "N" was also several months older when this testimonial was given. Kids develop very quickly and it's normal for kids to improve at spelling, Spanish and piano and give up sleeping in their parents' bed as they get older. It would be like saying reiki made him grow taller.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Wow, those testimonials are something else. I suspect that they are completely bogus. This one in particular sets me off:

“I cannot tell you, Zoran, how much better I feel after having the therapy with you. I have not had an incident of depression since…I don’t think I could get depressed even if I tried. This has set my life in a different course.”
- Client with Depression

As someone who has dealt with depression for all my life, I can tell that whoever wrote this clearly has no understanding of how depression works, what it feels like, or how to treat it. Managing depression isn't about freeing yourself from feeling depressed. It's about strategies to deal with those feelings when they do in fact arise.

I think the take-home lesson for Judith here may be that "lighten up, everybody" may be an ever worse gambit than insinuating legal threats.

@ Judith,

I have tried reiki sex, giving it a free pass exactly for entertainment value, not health care; exactly as you propose it and it didn't work, at all.

Why are you ignoring me?

Alain

And what's the obsession with anonymity? Why would the "therapists" be reticent to use their names? It's not like they're mentioning their clients' names or anything. If I could distance heal breast cancer I'd WANT my name used. Are they afraid they'll have more customers than they can deal with?

And in this digital age when every Burzynski patient puts the most private and intimate details of their lives on Facebook, why would satisfied energy customers not want their names used either? Is there anything to be ashamed of or embarassed about having had cancer? It's not Alcoholics Anonymous...

Maybe they're embarassed that they got sucked in by energy healing.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Maybe they’re embarassed that they got sucked in by energy healing.

If they're still alive, the embarrassment likely takes time to sink in. I do wonder how many of these people would agree to the content of their testimonial years later.

@Alain, I think the paid service of the other kind, which you previously mentioned, would be more effective than Judith's version.

“a book called Qi“

I remember to this day
The deep red aura rays
And how they stuck to the haragei
After the summer rain

Willpower made that energy flow
A woman's mind told me that's so
Oh how I wish
We were back on the scam again

Me and ye and a book named Qi
Standin' and-a wavin' with our hands
Me and ye and a book named Qi
How I loved bein' a free man.

^ OK, it needs work.

@ S

I agree that regular sex (free or not) offer better benefits over the reiki one.

Alain

DAMN you, Narad. My Pepsi went up my nose.

@Narad

Don't leave your day job to become a poet or a song writer.

@Judith:
Nothing works on fibromyalgia.

As a fibromyalgia sufferer, I can say the following has greatly relieved my problems:
* Massage carried out by a qualified therapist
* Diet
* Exercise
* Tricylic Antidepressants
* Paracetamol based pain killers

All these therapies were prescribed and are overseen by a REAL DOCTOR, a rheumatologist in this case - not some person who insists waving hands can cure cancers.

By Christine (the… (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

@herr doktor bimler, like your cats, I feel certain that Tilly, my British Shorthair, would be most annoyed if I tried reiki instead of patting. I think anyone who tried reiki on her would find their hands being pulled down into proper stroking position.

By Christine (the… (not verified) on 13 Dec 2012 #permalink

Don’t leave your day job to become a poet or a song writer.

I would have supposed you old enough to get the reference.

I have experienced ReikiThe Lord, and you have not. It’s as simple as that.

As for entertainment value, Judith, I can have more fun on my own. Maybe you can help with the callouses?

Can't you diagnose at a distance or was that The Divine Miss M?

@ Narad - Boo heh heh

Oh phuque, just saw this - "We made up a lot of those laws."

Really, which ones are no less fictional than your wavery fixery?

By al kimeea (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Don’t leave your day job to become a poet or a song writer.

@Judith, You took an inaccurate reading. Read it again and feel the energy of the vibrations. Is this a reflection of the lacking in your other energy reading's diagnoses and treatments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fgGNZYR5QM

@Judith

I know my own anecdotal evidence; I suppose you are right that I shouldn’t expect others to be willingly reliant on it, nor should I be reliant on other people’s anecdotal evidence based on what I know about mine.

And yet you refuse to post actual evidence, take records, or make any attempt to use science to prove your ideas. And why? "Because I know what I know, and you don't, so :P to you" You've basically just admitted you have no proof it works anyway.

I will fourth the comment: take Randi's challenge and put up or shut up.

Really, lighten up everybody. What we are talking about here is an exercise between consenting adults.

Now we are down to quack mirandas and "it's only for entertainment" disclaimers that people use with astrology. Yeah, good luck with convincing us that you're doing something that works. Evidently you've run out of ammo.

I would say to him that it works for some people but not for others and that you never know whether it works for you until you try it.

Read: I would give him anecdotes, there's nothing wrong with anecdotes. Except I just admitted there's a problem with them, but shhhh, I never said that.

I would wave at him a while longer, until he said 0, or 1 or 2.

Here's a question, and it's a serious one: how come the Queen doesn't heal people by waving at them when she goes by? She does it enough, surely she would be curing Brits left, right and centre every day she goes outside?

According to the NIH, “Reiki appears to be generally safe, and no serious side effects have been reported.”

Nowhere in there is a statement saying that it is efficacious though. (Care to link to the NIH page?) - Ah, I see S has responded and posted what you left out. Nice cherrypicking Judith, that's a surefire way to convince us you're a liar and a fraud.

I have experienced Reiki, and you have not. It’s as simple as that.

I've experienced qi gong - isn't that close enough? Besides, the whole point of science is that we *don't* have to experience something to know it works. I have never experienced riding a roller coaster. That doesn't mean I have to take my friend's word for it that it goes up and down really fast.

It’s still a matter between consenting adults. You can say no to it. You can allow others the right to choose.

And now we're back to the "health freedom" bullcrap. Here's a clue: you want people to be "allowed" to use reiki. I want people to have an informed choice. Lying to your patients by holding back information about efficacy is not freedom, not unless you're the only person allowed to have it. What you're really saying is "I think this works, I've experienced it" and hoping that they don't have the brains to ask "yes, but has it worked for other people too?" When they do you give them a wishy-washy answer that it sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. That doesn't instil a lot of confidence, so you simply redirect them around the question *and* answer.

You're saying that only your experience is a hallmark for what you do, which is fine if you were only doing it to yourself.

God forbid the reiki practitioner is held to some sort of medical standards, right Judith?

This is nothing to say that you threaten people with comments about libel. You clearly don't want other people to have the freedom to criticise you. Between consenting adults, this is one consenting adult who is telling you to PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

But you won't, because like the threats of libel, you have nothing up your sleeve.

@Narad

(Amusingly, Domancic’s primary advertising site, which does in fact target the U.S., is hosted in the same place as “Is Anybody Down,” a reference that MSII will likely get, although it’s not patently absurd in this case.)

I got it - and found it somewhat amusing.

I think the take-home lesson for Judith here may be that “lighten up, everybody” may be an ever worse gambit than insinuating legal threats.

I think we're getting to Marg-level devolutions now, where she's got nothing better than to throw random snide comments.

@Krebiozen

I'm glad the stray cats of the world have you to rely on :)
Sigh... it's quite clear she, like Marg, is never going to get it.

@AdamG

As someone who has dealt with depression for all my life, I can tell that whoever wrote this clearly has no understanding of how depression works, what it feels like, or how to treat it. Managing depression isn’t about freeing yourself from feeling depressed. It’s about strategies to deal with those feelings when they do in fact arise.

Same here: and I agree. That testimonial is insulting.

@MSII

And in this digital age when every Burzynski patient puts the most private and intimate details of their lives on Facebook, why would satisfied energy customers not want their names used either? Is there anything to be ashamed of or embarassed about having had cancer? It’s not Alcoholics Anonymous…

To be fair, I've had a number of customers who don't want their names plastered on the net as testimonials, for privacy reasons. You're also assuming that the testimonial comes direct from the person who received the treatment and not passed on through another party. (Ie. mother books session for son, sends back what the son says) Of course, that's assuming the practitioner is ethical enough to hold back the person's actual name due to lack of permission or whatever.

I put this sentence

"Sigh… it’s quite clear she, like Marg, is never going to get it. "

In the wrong place. I really have to stop doing things like that....

Judith,

Lighten up? If it really was just a matter of harmless handwaving between consenting adults I wouldn't be too bothered, to be honest. It is your claims about cancer patients such as, "people do better with palliative energy treatments than palliative chemo", that seriously piss me off. You have claimed here that you can extend the lives of terminal cancer patients, presenting a handful of anecdotes as evidence, and you have repeated several horror stories about conventional treatment that are clearly designed to scare people away from chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

This is nothing to lighten up about, it's dangerous, and puts people at risk. As I have said before, oncologists are seeing more and more patients at a late stage of cancer because they have pursued ineffective alternative therapies for months instead of getting real treatment.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Yes, you all need to lighten up about Reiki, in particular. You are using Reiki as a generic term for all forms of energy healing. It's not. For what is claimed for Reiki, watch and read Pamela Miles. The claims made are for generic relaxation, which has been demonstrated in studies.

@Krebiozen

@Krebiozen
I stand by what I said on the subject of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Conventional medicine's track record on cancer is pathetic.

@Narad
I remember to this day
The bright red Georgia clay
And how it stuck to the tires
After the summer rain
Will power made that old car go
A woman's mind told me that so
Oh how I wish
We were back on the road again

Me and you and a dog named boo
Travellin' and livin' off the land
Me and you and a dog named boo
How I love being a free man

@Judith

The claims made are for generic relaxation, which has been demonstrated in studies.

No Judith, you claimed that YOU have used it for its medicinal qualities, healing wounds and clearing infection. Don't tart back-peddling now.

I stand by what I said on the subject of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Conventional medicine’s track record on cancer is pathetic.

And yet this track record you dismiss is still light years ahead of any results achieved by Reiki or any other form of batsh*t crazy woo you can name.

The claims made are for generic relaxation, which has been demonstrated in studies.

@Judith, Your own businesses claims and client testimonials do not support that you only recommend Reiki for "generic relaxation". You statements here on RI contradict that time and time again. You are scamming ill patients. When confronted by people who can challenge your claims you attempt to slither out of your misleading statements by telling them to lighten up and that Reiki is only a generic form of relaxation.

Your behavior of misleading and exploiting the ill for your own financial gain is contemptible. If you have a disability or other unfulfilled emotional need, I suggest you see a professional and stop luring vulnerable and ill patients into your web.

Cookie please. Oatmeal raisin or chocolate chip, preferably...

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Judith,

I stand by what I said on the subject of chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

But it's not true! Even in the very worst case scenarios of terminal pancreatic cancer or non small cell lung cancer, palliative chemotherapy not only adds months to patients' lives, but it significantly improves their quality of life. I have posted links to systematic reviews that demonstrate this beyond any reasonable doubt. Energy medicine, on the other hand, can do practically nothing for these conditions.

Conventional medicine’s track record on cancer is pathetic.

That's not true either, in many areas conventional medicine has made huge advances. Look at childhood leukemia, for example - in 1975 only 37.4% of patients survived for 5 years, now it is over 80%. Similar improvements have been made for lymphomas, breast cancer, testicular cancer, prostate cancer and others.

In any case, energy healing's record on cancer is even worse than conventional treatment.

Thus, best evidence syntheses for effects of biofield therapies for cancer populations may be summarized as follows: There is moderate (level 2) evidence for positive effects on acute cancer pain. To date, there is conflicting (level 4) evidence for longer term pain, cancer-related fatigue, quality of life, and physiologic indicators of the relaxation response.

Now that's pathetic.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen
This is the issue. Conventional medicine has been at trying to discover a cure for cancer for decades. Success has been measured in very small increments. Overall success is still something like 8 per cent. I was shocked to discover while I was reading up on chemotherapy that something like 75 per cent of treatment is palliative.

So maybe it's time to look at the problem from a different angle than that employed by pharmaceutical companies.
Poisoning and burning have not had such good results; cutting, so far, has been the best. When it can be done.

Then along comes Bengston with his mice. Everybody is too busy shooting him down because his in-house control mice didn't die, totally overlooking the fact that none of his mice should have survived, control or experimental, and that his off-site controls DID die, and that geomagnetic probes showed odd effects simultaneously around the cages both of the mice that were being treated and the controls, that were not being treated.

You would think that people would say that's interesting, let me try to replicate that. And if they tried to replicate it and they failed, then Bob's your uncle. BUT NO ONE HAS EVEN TRIED. So everyone jumps on Bengston that his experiments have not been replicated, although he has done it 10 or 12 times, even with others doing the healing, but no one has actually tried to replicate them to prove him wrong.

Everyone is happy to believe that 10 or 12 experiments in five different university labs all used flawed mice provided by Jackson labs or that all these labs had incompetent personnel caring for these mice who somehow sabotaged the experiments.

You would think that at least some people would be curious enough to replicate the experiment if only to shoot it down. But in fact even if they are, they can't get mice to perform the experiment because apparently it's ethical to irradiate mice, to inject mice, and to sacrifice mice in the name of pharmaceutical research, but for some reason it's not ethical to wave at them.

I think everyone is deathly afraid that energy healing is actually viable.

@Judith, No one is stopping you from conducting your own proper studies. You have an opportunity to earn one million dollars with the James Randi Challenge. Evidence your clams and stop whining that other people are supposed to do this for you.

The claims made are for generic relaxation, which has been demonstrated in studies.

So we've come right back to "Why not try energy healing? It's just as effective as knitting or a short nap."

@Judith

.....it’s ethical to irradiate mice, to inject mice, and to sacrifice mice in the name of pharmaceutical research, but for some reason it’s not ethical to wave at them.

No Judith, there are no ethical objections to waving at mice, just ethical objection to waving at mice AND telling them it is a proven therapeutic modality.

@Alain, I read your blog. If your treating physician did indeed promise you a career in research at the hospital where he worked, then I would think he may be stepping outside of his ethical boundaries by getting too involved in the personal lives of his patients. If he is supposed to be treating and overseeing your care, and he has only seen you once in a years time then this also raises some questions. I am sorry you have been bullied and treated so poorly, and wish you a better new year.

Then along comes Bengston with his mice. Everybody is too busy shooting him down because his in-house control mice didn’t die

And they're correct to do so, since the failure of the control mice to die indicates soemthing went so very very wrong with the experimental procedure that no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the study.

Take it out of the realm of cancer and energy healing and consider an identical outcome looking at an antidote for poisoning. We give 20 mice what should be a lethal dose of poison (ricin, for example), after which they're split into two groups of ten. One group is treated with the proposed antidote and one group left untreated.

The outcome is that ALL the mice survive.

Would you really conclude that the antidote was so specatacularly effective it must have saved the mice that didn't get any, and the mice really did receive a lethal dose of poison even though it didn't kill any of them?

If not, why are you giving Bengston a pass?

A woman’s mind told me that so

Um, yes, Judith, I already knew what it was. Moreover, I also have the sense not to trust random lyrics sites, which is why I didn't get this line wrong.

@ judith
I don't like to comment on these matters because I'm not a doctor or a scientist, I am but a lowly artist. But frankly my dear you are starting to get on my nerves. Several years ago I was sucked into the woo pretty bad, reiki especially, I even got the d@mn attunments. I focused that energy and visualised all the healing I could and reiki doesn't do a fu¢ing thing. It doesn't work on humans, it doesn't work on animals, it is complete and utter bull$hit. It's time you stop lying to your customers and most of all stop lying to yourself. Magic doesn't exist, it's just a fairy tale to make us feel better. Reiki is just a lie to make the practioners feel special. No person on this planet should need such lies to feel better about themselves. We are, each and every one of us unique and special in our own ways and it's time to stop all the bull$hit.

By shadow1458 (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Oh lookie...Pamela Miles has a full page of crap she sells, just like all good woo-peddlers.

http://reikiinmedicine.org/helpful-products/

Of note, she shills for that multi-level marketing scam that sells "high antioxidant" Xocai chocolate.

This stuff is absolute nonsense and has been discredited as a yet another pyramid scheme. The company has run into problems in many parts of the world for their absurd claims, yet not absurd enough for the reiki crowd.

Peter Bowditch of Ratbags has had a lot of fun exposing this company--he's been threatened, etc.

Back to Ms. Miles: her website has a page of "medical papers" she's written, most of which have appeared in the same rag as the Burzynski interview that Orac criticizes in this post, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine.

http://reikiinmedicine.org/medical-papers/

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

@MarkL --

Did Judith turn you into a newt? :-)

By Scottynuke (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Over on Orac's "friend's" other blog, Mark Crislip wrote a piece today on naturopathy, and started by outlining the four levels of alternative medicine. I love how he worded this:

Type 1: Total nonsense with zero prior plausibility. These are SCAMs based on ideas divorced from reality as I understand it, cannot have efficacy and do not have efficacy. It includes, but is not limited to, homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, ayurvedic, reiki and other energy therapies, iridology, applied kinesiology, craniosacral therapy, water therapy, and on and on and on.

People who inflict these modalities on others may be well intentioned, but as we all know “the road to Hell is paved with frozen type 1 providers. On weekends, many of the younger demons go ice skating down it.”

All type 1 SCAMs are useless, non-reality based magic*. I would think anyone who proposes any type I SCAM for diagnosis and treatment should be kept as far from providing medical care as is feasible*.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

I got better Scotty.

Noticed this above:

I know my own anecdotal evidence; I suppose you are right that I shouldn’t expect others to be willingly reliant on it, nor should I be reliant on other people’s anecdotal evidence based on what I know about mine.

Why do you believe that you should not be reliant on other's anecdotal evidence, and not expect they be reliant on yours? It seems to me as if you're suggesting that the problem with relying on anecdotal evidence is that it the anecdotes themselves may be fictitious in whole or in part, and therefore you can't rely on second hand accounts, but of course everyone can rely on their own anecdotal evidence because they've effectively "seen it with their own eyes".

If so, you're mistaken: the problem with anecdotes is that, accurately rendered or not, they represent single observations without context. So while you may indeed have had people tell you "My pain has gone from 8 to 2 on a 1 to 10 scale" after handwaving, that isn't evidence in support of efficacy. You need the missing context (If I wave hands at 500 people how many will report improvement? is that greater than the number of people who report improvement if I only pretend to wave hands 500 people? Etc.)

So while you're correct that you shouldn't expect that others rely your anecdotes, the part you're missing is that you shouldn't rely on your own anecdotes either.

@ Judith

I think everyone is deathly afraid that energy healing is actually viable.

Why should we be afraid? If it was possible for humans to mentally shape and use energy fields, or whatever it would be named, even the sky wouldn't be the limit to what we can do.

I am a fan of fantasy and steampunk novels, and talented writers have thought of hundred of applications for fictional magic beyond mere fireballs and puny healing spells. Just in food production, if a bit of handwaving can strengthen crops and cattle and keep vermin at bay, the benefits would be fantastic.

When I was a child, I wanted to build a rocket, so that I could fly my family away from Earth, away from death.
And then my grandpa died.

My parents are not getting younger, and are starting to develop old age infirmities. So is my cat.
My sister has some birth defects. She is autonomous, but need someone around.
If all I have to do to make them better was to wave at them, I would do it in a heartbeat.

But I learned that the universe is not working this way. It's not enough to wish to get that you want.

By Heliantus (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

This is the issue. Conventional medicine has been at trying to discover a cure for cancer for decades.

You're going to try to trot out that line? Here?

Success has been measured in very small increments.

Heavens to Betsy, this medical research thing is hard! Let's skip that part and just elevate ourselves to the clergy! Wheeee!

So maybe it’s time to look at the problem from a different angle than that employed by pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, let's get a criminologist with training from a cold-reader to examine this problem. Preferably one who makes moronic claims about being able to dissolve clouds. Why didn't we think of that before?

Poisoning and burning have not had such good results; cutting, so far, has been the best. When it can be done.

Yes, it's the parade of cancer-quack tropes. Explain for everyone how trastuzumab works, Judith. It's not "burning" or "cutting," so it must be "poisoning," right?

Then along comes Bengston with his mice. Everybody is too busy shooting him down because his in-house control mice didn’t die, totally overlooking the fact that none of his mice should have survived, control or experimental, and that his off-site controls DID die, and that geomagnetic probes showed odd effects simultaneously around the cages both of the mice that were being treated and the controls, that were not being treated.

Great, the "geomagnetic probes" again. Have you ever wondered why this usage is basically exclusive to Bengston? Oh, wait, we've been through all this sh*t before.

You would think that people would say that’s interesting, let me try to replicate that.

And yet all they do is explode into laughter. This, however, is a great mystery to you, whereas Bengston's "results" and the "explanation" make perfect sense. You have a bit of a hermeneutic contradiction here, Judith.

[...] Everyone is happy to believe that 10 or 12 experiments in five different university labs....

... which should be possible to differentiate based on the baseline data from the "geomagnetic probing," which apparently didn't occur to Bengston when cooking up this line of crap...

You would think that at least some people would be curious enough to replicate the experiment if only to shoot it down. But in fact even if they are, they can’t get mice to perform the experiment because apparently it’s ethical to irradiate mice, to inject mice, and to sacrifice mice in the name of pharmaceutical research, but for some reason it’s not ethical to wave at them.

It's unethical because it's pointless sadism, you nitwit. If Bengston can magically cure cancers, there are plenty of plenty of people who already have one. If he can only cure a specific cancer in a specific strain of mice, then who gives a sh*t? Remember, energy healing bypasses that little problem with being "incremental," right?

I think everyone is deathly afraid that energy healing is actually viable.

Does it hurt to be crazy, Judith? Putting out this level of psychological repression in public must be exhausting, at least.

Alt med often stealthily disguises sham treatments to resemble realistic options whilst again, kicking the can down the road: relaxation is often the method of choice.

Sure, relaxation helps people to *feel* better rather than necessarily *making* them better by working against the illness itself.

BUT alt media continuously confounds the two: a woo-meister with whom I am sickeningly familar asserts that *de-stressing* allows your body to repair itself better: for example, it can repair damaged tissue AND damaged DNA thus is important against cancer, aids, CVD etc. SB treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and meds increase stress so should be assiduously avoided.

To buy this bill of goods, you'd need to accept the schools of thought ( and I do hope that the words 'school' and 'thought' will excuse this mis-usage) that posit psychic trauma as the cause of all ills ( Orac has discussed German *Neue* Medicine as well as its French counterpart). A great deal is usually also made of Selye's ideas about stress. The patient's negative,stressed reactions guarantee continued languishing: so straighten up and fly right.

People who are suffering a serious illness or reacting to a poor diagnosis obviously need to experience respite from the anxiety and fear that might engulf them.

Suppose we look at ANY illness first: you have a cold or flu which is caused by a virus and don't take anti-virals or anti-biotics (for secondary bacterial infections). You feel weak and stressed by the condition; you might worry about missing work or getting behind on your chores. You seek out ways to rest , relax and relieve symptoms as you wait out the 7-10 days: watch movies, talk with friends, sleep more, take OTC meds, drink tea.. This will make you FEEL better as you GET better and- if you don't have any complications, you will usually get better on your own without medical intervention.

Now suppose you have something that doesn't take care of itself- like an ulcer, a broken bone or a cancer- then focusing on the negative feelings of stress might actually work against you because you are WASTING TIME. ( And yes, I know that sometimes a person can be so frightened that they might need to calm down first before getting help and that rest does help some conditions that also require real intervention) . Stress relief is not going to counteract the damage or disease process that is on-going.

When I read woo-meisters equate the two situations I realise that they don't have much of a background in bio or physio: cancer is not like a cold. Neither is CHF. Or hiv/aids.

They are able to get away with this nonsense and claim "cures" because often they are dealing with self-limiting or intermittent conditions that either heal on their own or naturally have periods of latency or a decrease in symptoms. They can acquire testimonials about MS or athritis or other conditions because the person does FEEL better and attributes it to woo-ful intervention not a period of quiessence in the condition. Similarly a person with a non-self limiting condition might be fooled into thinking that because they temporarily FEEL better, they are GETTING better.

Alt med relies upon confounding issues to make its case.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Judith,

This is the issue. Conventional medicine has been at trying to discover a cure for cancer for decades.

True, and it has succeeded in several areas. As I have pointed out before, I know several people who are alive decades after conventional treatment for cancer.

Success has been measured in very small increments.

Really? In 1975 only 49% of cancer patients survived 5 years, but today 67% do.

Overall success is still something like 8 per cent.

What do you count as success? Five years after diagnosis 67% of all cancer patients are still alive.

I was shocked to discover while I was reading up on chemotherapy that something like 75 per cent of treatment is palliative.

Where did you read that? I very much doubt that figure is correct.

You should really try reading a bit more of this blog, or maybe articles like this. What we have found over the past several decades is that cancer is a great deal more complex than we ever imagined. It is not one disease but thousands of different diseases. It is not even one disease in a single tumor. Cancer cells mutate and display microevolution, so they can quickly develop resistance to chemotherapy. Tumors are made up of the patient's own cells so their immune system doesn't recognize them. This makes it very difficult to stop cancer cells without having a bad effect on normal cells.

Despite this I am confident that we are making great progress against cancer. Some of the new targeted treatments coming out show great promise. Orac often writes about them here.

I don't believe that energy medicine of any kind has anything to offer in the treatment of cancer. Not only is it utterly scientifically implausible, but if you look at well-designed studies it doesn't work in cell cultures, it doesn't work in animals and it doesn't work in humans. Bengston's work isn't only flawed because his control mice survived, it is flawed for a whole raft of different reasons such as inadequate randomization, a complete lack of blinding, breaking experimental protocols in every single experiment and only publishing the results of one experiment a decade after the experiment. The literature does not support Bengston's claims about the mice involved, and their life expectancy.

The other 10 or 12 experiments he is alleged to have carried out have not been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, or any journals for that matter. Nowhere are Bengston's claims about these experiments corroborated by the "trained scientists at university laboratories" we are told about, I have only seen one account written by Bengston published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine several decades after the experiments were carried out. That particular journal is full of what looks to me like credulous nonsense.

Having worked with many research scientists over the years, I simply don't believe that Bengston's experiments have been ignored because scientists are afraid of them. The scientists I have known have been a curious bunch, some of them developed a test for serum acetaminophen by sneaking into a factory where it was made in the dead of night to grab soil samples which proved to contain bacteria that had developed the ability to metabolize the drug. These are not the sort of people who would be scared away by someting unexplained that could earn them a Nobel Prize if it could be replicated.

I think Bengston's experiments have been ignored because they have been carried out incompetently. I wrote to the Professor and Chairman of the Biology Department of the college where Bengston works, asking about him and received this reply:

Those experiments were initiated well before I was a part of St. Joseph's College( >17 years ago). It was my understanding that the department started to work with him in a spirit of collegiality, but his approach did not adhere to the departmental mission and thus they ended any relationship. The college's position is that Dr. Bengston works at St. Joseph's College as a Sociologist and this is an additional interest of his, independent of any institutional role.

"His approach did not adhere to the departmental mission" speaks volumes to me, though I'm sure you will see it as confirming your conspiracy theories.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

“Why not try energy healing? It’s just as effective as knitting or a short nap.”

Here I've wasted years teaching people to knit for free. I could have marketed myself as a fiber therapist and made some $$$ from it.

We have been round and round this particular set of ragged rocks before, with Marg. Assuming that they are independent entities (I have wondered at times), perhaps Judith could just read the previous discussions here.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

So maybe it’s time to look at the problem from a different angle than that employed by pharmaceutical companies.

You're overlooking the fact that people have been looking at the problem from those different angles for decades without any documented success at all, let alone success comparable to that conventional medicine has achieved. (How long, for example, has Bengston been waving his hands at mice? Where's your documented studies demonstrating efficacy?)

Until you can offer some evidence indicating energy healing accomplishes anything, operates as anything other than a placebo, you aren't in a position to argue more resources should be devoted to investigating it.

Denice:

Sure, relaxation helps people to *feel* better rather than necessarily *making* them better by working against the illness itself.

I am reminded of Zaphod Beeblebrox's peril-sensitive sunglasses. They protect the wearer from any stress due to peril by continuously scanning the environment for peril, then darkening completely whenever peril is detected. The wearer is thus prevented from observing the peril and will remain relaxed.

There is an obvious problem there, of course.

Judith,

You point out that oncology still does not save everybody. This is, of course, true. What I'm struggling to understand is why this is any sort of argument in favor of reiki. Oncology is hard, so give up? Is that really what you're saying?

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

narad, think you picked the wrong song. I keep hearing Rod Stewart

Knowing that you lied
straight faced
while I cried
Still I look to find a reason to believe

Where did you read that? I very much doubt that figure is correct.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were an embroidery along the lines of the angioplasty attempt. This did cause me to note one other thing, though. Re Makary, Judith produced this:

Studies cited: [...] 50% of cancer patients are receiving chemotherapy the week of their death

This is also an exaggeration to suit Judith's narrative. Makary, who is actually counting chemotherapy and radiotherapy, cites this. What does the paper actually say? Let's look!

In Massachusetts, 33% of cancer decedents older than 65 years of age received chemotherapy in the last 6 months of life, 23% in the last 3 months, and 9% in the last month. In California, the percentages were 26%, 20%, and 9%, respectively. Chemotherapy use greatly declined with age.

Oops. Hey, are there any other data? Ya sure ya betcha (PDF):

2. The use of chemotherapy in the last two weeks of life overall was about 6% of patients, but in some regions and academic medical centers the rate exceeded 10%.

Something is missing here.

Calli, I think what alt med provides is more appropriately called *blinders*.

Narad, the exaggeration is ONLY by a factor of 5 or 8.
SERIOUSLY, don't be a stickler.

shadow1458:
I am so happy that my mention of the big cat possibly brought you out of lurkerdom.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Narad, the exaggeration is ONLY by a factor of 5 or 8.
SERIOUSLY, don’t be a stickler.

To some extent, that's Makary, but the elision of radiotherapy is a bit much given the three-fer with angioplasty. I do not, however, have full-text access to Emanuel et al. to look more closely at what was going on at the head end.

All the woo has come
Here but now it's gone
Orac don't fear the Reiki
Nor do the other folks on this board
We can be like they are
Come on baby... Don't fear the Reiki!

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

With apologies.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Denice -- so did the Peril Sensitive Sunglasses. ;-) When our heroes walk into a suspicious cavern on Magrathea, the sunglasses suddenly detect peril and go completely black. Zaphod is thus completely blinded, which makes him unable to see or flee from the imminent doom.

I think it's a very good analogy to alt med claiming that *feeling* better is the important thing.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Calli Aracale - those would be the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, available at all good chemists, yes?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Narad

Shoot me an email re: the Emanuel study. todd at harpocratesspeaks dot com

Carry on, my reiki son
There'll be fees when you are done
Lay your weary hands to rest
Don't you think no more

Happily, the verses work without any modification at all. Tweak the bridge, maybe.

Reiki, don't make it bad.
Take an ill man and make him better.
Remember to let the energy in,
Then you can begin to make it better.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Talkin' 'bout
Hey now (hey now)
Hey now (hey now)
Reiki reiki all day
Judith and Marg scamming marks all day
Judith and Marg no way

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

And one that needs little alteration...

When you believe in things you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way

OK, this 50%-in-the-last-week business seems to be full-on Makary sloppiness. The work that he cites, which cites the claim, leads with it and concludes that it is "exaggerated." The actual claim is an anecdote reported in a supplement to the Cancer Letter. Given how few references are in the actual book, you'd think somebody would have fact-checked it. Judith, however, is largely off the hook aside from the elision, although Makary's inclusion of radiotherapy appears to have been erroneous as well, so it's a wash.

Imagine there's no science
It's easy if you try
No data below us
Above us, only psi
Imagine all the scammers, living life in peace

Imagine no statistics
It's isn't hard to do
Nothing to base your case on
It's all religion too
Imagine all the fraudsters, living life in ease

Woo-oo oo-oo woo

You might say I'm a sceptic
but I'm not the only one
etc.

I have to go. Feel free to add a verse.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

I wrote this a few days ago and had decided not to post it in case anyone might actually believe it as true. I need cheering up, and I can't write songs very well, so here's my contribution. Maybe I should apply for a job writing Mercola's advertisements?

That’s why you should buy my magic carpet.

Love the magic carpet! Where do I send my bucks? I will buy 50.

When buying magic carpets, watch out for imitators that may not deliver the benefits you expect. Magic Carpets by S™ offers carpets with a unique blend of all natural fibers. You'll be sure to notice vast improvements in your health after just 6 months of carpet riding on a Magic Carpet by S™.

The team at Magic Carpets by S™ is your team. We are dedicated to working for you, with only your best interests in mind. We offer more than the mediocre benefits touted by traditional magic carpet vendors. Magic Carpets by S™ have a special energy comprised of compassion which is infused into every fiber and woven throughout our carpets. Our carpets are intended only for those who can appreciate fine quality workmanship and are sincerely dedicated to owning and caring for the only real magic carpet in existance.

Magic Carpets by S™ come with complete instructions and a diary to help you track your daily usage. Like all high-quality products, Magic Carpets by S™ need special, loving care, which anyone can easily fit into their daily routine. Magic Carpets by S™ require a brisk 30-minute walk, swim, bike or other outdoor activity every day. You heard that right! You can't expect your magic carpet to take care of you, if you don't take care of it using our unique blend of special carpet care techniques. A 30-minute outing every day, perhaps a walk around your neighborhood or a park will keep your magic carpet tuned up and working so it can continue to help you achieve the ultimate in health and wellness.

Magic Carpets by S™ are available in several models and can easily be adapted to fit your specials needs. We offer a low pile fiber best suited for wheelchair use, and a thick pile for those with more energy who need greater resistance when traveling. Whatever your needs, we have a carpet for you.

Suffering from chronic illness, feeling isolated, lonely, stressed, financially strapped? After just six months of owning a Magic Carpet by S™ you'll be feeling better. While caring for your carpet on your daily outings, you'll slowly notice how people will be drawn to you. They'll notice you have more energy, you'll be happier, and lively even while engaging in the required daily carpet care maintenance. Soon, all of your neighbors will want a carpet too, but careful not to give them yours. Keeping only your best interest in mind, Magic Carpets by S™ offers discounts to your friends and families. With every purchase you will receive a one year's subscription to Magic Carpet Rides Magazine™. A subscription for ONE FULL YEAR for FREE!

Magic Carpet Rides Magazine™ features vacations and local destinations your Magic Carpet by S will love. Remember, care for your carpet, and your carpet will care for you. If you are sincere about doing everything in your power to maintain good health and longevity, this is an offer you simply cannot refuse.

Don't be fooled by inferior magic carpets. Industry shills will claim that their carpets are based on foolish "uncertainty principles". Ridiculous! There is nothing uncertain about Magic Carpets by S™. Other modes of transportation are dangerous. Owners of other magic carpets report being maimed with horrific and painful fingertip amputations. Such inferior brands emit bad energy and ultimately lead to such accidents. Magic Carpets by S™ emit only good energy and shield you from negativity. Whenever a Magic Carpet by S™ senses incoming negativity, just follow the enclosed care instructions to turn and go in the other direction.

Magic Carpets by S™ have unique healing qualities supported by years of research and studies. Greedy industry shrews have suppressed this life-saving information and destroyed all the study data. The success of their vast industrial enterprises depends upon keeping you ill. My purist of desires is to enable you to live a healthy, long and fulfilling life, the one you've always dreamed about. It is only this desire that compels me to offer you Magic Carpets by S™ at bargain discount rates you'll never find anywhere else. My friends, I've uncovered the secret to good health, longevity, and friendship. Those secrets are now available to you. Take responsibility for your health. Don't miss out on this once in a lifetime deal!

S,
That is worryingly authentic-looking. However, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, at this blatant intellectual property theft. You will be hearing from my attorney, as I intend to woo, I mean sue. I should never have sent you that prototype, though I'm surprised it got to you at all to be honest, what with the complete lack of any form of propulsion (that's a trade secret by the way).

On the song-writing front, for some reason this comes to mind:

I dreamed I had reiki last night,
From someone called Judy,
Says I, "The reiki didn't work,"
"It never does," says she.
"It never does," says she.

Leading to a refrain along the lines of:

Big Pharma studies killed reiki,
"It never dies," said she.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Denice Walter
You have the makings there of a decent poet & songwriter. Better than @Narad.

@Judith
You have the makings of a decent thereminist.

The crystal freaks from down the street
Are trying hard to send Qi Gong
Serenade the Pleiadian
Who just came out to signal home

Another Reiki Valley Sunday
Clouds dispersing everywhere
Rows of clinics that are all the same
And no one seems to care

See Mrs. Ley she's proud today
Because her lines they are in tune
Mr. Feen he's so serene
He's got vibrations in every room

Another Reiki Valley Sunday
Here in sacred symbol land
Healers complain about how hard life is
And physics just don't understand

Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul and make it hard for me to see
My intentions seem to stray, to wavebands far away
I need a change to EFT

Tap-tap-tap, tap-tap-tap, tap-tap-tap, tap-tap-tap
Klaaa, aaah, tuuuu

(repeat)

Another Reiki Valley Sunday
Clouds dispersing everywhere
Another Reiki Valley Sunday
Here in sacred symbol land

(fade)
Another Reiki Valley Sunday...
Another Reiki Valley Sunday...

@Denice Walter
You have the makings there of a decent poet & songwriter. Better than @Narad.

That takes some balls, given your own limping attempt. At least I put some thought into the meter, rather than slopping something out and declaring victory.

All joking aside, Marg, you are truly unbelievable. I am astonished that the freedom to practice medicine has been so compromised that anyone with a pen and signboard can set up shop and sell their wares to patients. Medical mockery.

Judith, have you contacted Randi yet? That million dollars isn't going to win itself, you know.

^ "attempts"

However, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, at this blatant intellectual property theft.

@Krebiozen, I did that on purpose. Stole your research and twisted it into something completely different, marketed and profited from it, taking it as my own. (joking). I learned to do this because I've been taught by the very best of woomeisters. I've come to recognize that this is indeed how they do business. They grab a little bit of truth from a respected researcher and twist it around to suit their needs of self-promotion and line their pockets with the cash from desperate or dying patients. They intentionally discredit the original researcher and attempt to make fools of them for honest mistakes like amputating their own fingertips so as to redirect business to themselves. Not bad, huh?

@Judith

For what is claimed for Reiki, watch and read Pamela Miles. The claims made are for generic relaxation, which has been demonstrated in studies.

Why do you continue to ignore requests for peer-reviewed studies?

Conventional medicine’s track record on cancer is pathetic.

And now we're back at tu quoque again.

I'm bored.... maybe you should go back to threatening people with libel again, that was at least a new tactic.

Poisoning and burning have not had such good results; cutting, so far, has been the best.

There really is nothing original to be found in your comments at all, is there?

Success has been measured in very small increments.

Yeah, that's how it works in the real world. But some people prefer their imaginary magic wands I suppose.

You would think that people would say that’s interesting, let me try to replicate that. And if they tried to replicate it and they failed, then Bob’s your uncle. BUT NO ONE HAS EVEN TRIED. So everyone jumps on Bengston that his experiments have not been replicated, although he has done it 10 or 12 times, even with others doing the healing, but no one has actually tried to replicate them to prove him wrong.

Holy hell - did she just completely plagiarise Marg here? That's practically a rewording of one of Marg's comments. Are you and she sharing notes perhaps?

By the way, why is it that you can only come up with one guy and 12 experiments? If it's so easy to prove, if it exists, then surely more than one person would be studying it and publishing the results.... Unless of course you're just a whinging liar who believes more in her own experience than providing evidence.

I think everyone is deathly afraid that energy healing is actually viable.

The merry-go-round is more fun than this.

I think I shall, from now on, treat you like I do with Marg. There's clearly no point in responding to you any more - not that you actually reply to me at all now, and instead I will simply post a reminder. Like so:

Yet another tour of distractions away from the fact that MARG nor JUDITH, the contemptible purse-snatchers of science, HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY HEALING WORKS. Plus, made threats of libel which are hollow, vague and disingenuous; an attempt to chill speech and scare critics.

@shadow1458

Ooh, another lowly artist. I suddenly feel less like an outsider :)

@Narad

Your "you betcha" link is formatted incorrectly and produces a 404 error.

@DW

I love your rendition of "Imagine".

@S

Likewise, your magic carpet stuff is very good.

Your “you betcha” link is formatted incorrectly and produces a 404 error.

Ando meio desligado and then some today, it appears. The link was meant to land here (still PDF).

I want Magic Carpets by S. I will be in touch with S psychically when I get my bonus next year.

That ad is a thing of beauty.

@Krebiozen
You are "cherry-picking" cancers. And one could argue that a large part of that improvement in survival is improvements in early detection, which allow for more successful surgical interventions. Then there is this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320224/ And the news for those children successfully treated for leukemia with all the best poisons medical science can offer is not all that rosy http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/ResourceCentres/Leukemia/LookingAheadf…

All the studies you cite for energy healing pertain either to Reiki or to Therapeutic Touch. There are no studies for the Domancic method or (other than Bengston's) the Bengston method.

@Narad
What limping attempt? That was the original song; I quoted it to show you that I knew what you were talking about.

All the studies you cite for energy healing pertain either to Reiki or to Therapeutic Touch. There are no studies for the Domancic method or (other than Bengston’s) the Bengston method.

Well, there's a good reason to buy a cash register.

@ flip:

Thank you for your kind words.
Judith informs me that I might have poetic ability -
I suppose that explains that Muse guy who's always hanging around here at night...

I sometimes think that alt med folk- including reiki artists- are misplaced artists and creative people who have mistakenly conceptualised what they cherish as 'science' instead of calling it either fiction or design. Science seeks to discover and map external reality not reify internal re-arrangements of time, space and emotion hastily supported upon a scaffolding of verbiage extrapolating both old and new mythologies. .

Either that or they missed out on the ministry.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

"All joking aside, Marg, you are truly unbelievable."

^That should read to Judith.

That ad is a thing of beauty.

Thank you, LW. Do you think people could be convinced into caring for a Magic Carpet by S as a path to wellness? I picture it about 2 inches square, fits in your pocket. And I bet you thought it would transport you. I would imagine that The Pet Rock people made a small fortune. Ride out of quackdom on a Magic Carpet by S.

What limping attempt?

The whole miasma, Judith.

That was the original song; I quoted it to show you that I knew what you were talking about.

What made you think that this observation would be of any interest? I wouldn't have proffered it if I didn't think it would be recognizable. As with Th1Th2, you're failing to grasp your entry into the zone between being talked to and being talked about.

S, I have some really beautiful little magic carpets already. They came from the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. They look like little Persian carpets. The larger ones are mouse rugs, used as mouse pads, and the smaller ones are, rather deplorably, sold to be put under cups. I think we should go into business together. My ka will call your ka.

@Narad
"Curmudgeon of the year" award coming your way. Don't forget to duck.

Don’t forget to duck.

Thanks, but lexical analysis has already been played out recently.

@LW
Check this out (it's a comment on a blog about Randi):

emcphd said...

I have studied the James Randi Educational Foundation's offer of $1,000,000. Unlike most journalists I have actually read the rules and combed the files.
The thing is, the offer of a million bucks is totally fake. For one thing, nobody can apply unless they are famous - that is, only if they have a media presence. That eliminates almost everybody. Also, the hoops that the Randi Foundation make one jump through are insurmountable. One is summarily rejected if s/he is deemed crazy. And what is the method of determining that? If the person makes crazy claims, such as being able to bend a spoon with just the mind. Out you go. This is why Randi can claim that nobody ever got through his preliminary testing. Would you trust a test where nobody got past the first round?
Randi also fabricates where it suits him. Ask him if he has ever been successfully sued for slander and he will say, "I have never paid one penny inn a court case." That begs the question, but journalists are too timid to follow up (see Bush/WMD). The fact is that Randi has indeed been successfully sued more than once but, as he said, he never paid. He simply defaults. So he is a proven liar.
What's more, the very people who offer the money are the judges. Nowhere else is this the case. It is a clear conflict of interest.
Randi has put a million bucks into escrow and more than gotten his money's worth in publicity. And when he is done with this racket he still has the money. So what's the point of the Educational Foundation? It impresses people who have not read the rules... and through the donations Randi solicits, he pays himself as the "contest" administrator a cool quarter million bucks annually. That is what I call a racket.
Peace, Brother.

Judith, I work with the JREF, the million is real and Randi earns every penny he makes by shining the light of reason on quacks and charlatans like you. The rules are established and agreed upon by the applicant and the JREF. And keep your passive aggressive "peace" to yourself.

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

Besides the other falsehoods in what Judith quoted, I like this one:

"The fact is that Randi has indeed been successfully sued more than once but, as he said, he never paid. He simply defaults."

See, as the defendant in a court case, you can defend or you default. If you default, the Court enters judgement against you. The plaintiff can then collect from you -- levy on your property, for instance. You don't avoid "paying a penny" by defaulting; that pretty much guarantees that you *will* pay unless you're judgement proof.

Here's another falsehood:

"For one thing, nobody can apply unless they are famous – that is, only if they have a media presence. That eliminates almost everybody."

Read the rules (follow the link I gave). *One* way you can qualify to apply is to be written up in an off-line article. How hard is that to achieve, if you really have the ability to, for a randomly chosen example, cure poison oak rash instantly? I am given to understand that local papers dearly love local interest stories and are distressingly credulous as well.

JREF does not require you to appear on national television before they will accept your application. That claim is false, and quite obviously so.

Check this out (it’s a comment on a blog about Randi):

emcphd said…

If you wanted to choose a source, and this whine is as common as dirt, you couldn't have done more poorly as far as associations go.

That last paragraph was poorly phrased on my part. I meant, "JREF does not require you to appear on national television before they will accept your application. The claim that you must have a media presence is false, and quite obviously so."

I figured if I kept pushing Judith long enough, she'd come up with the usual excuses for not trying the Randi Challenge. She did not disappoint.

That comment sounds as if its author read ( and/ or wrote) the Bolen Report.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Pareidolius
And since the man gives you your paycheque you are not the least bit biased.

@LW
If you are in default, the plaintiff has to collect the sums awarded. I've been told it's a pain to collect.

I watched a Randi Challenge that was put up on YouTube. The applicant (who failed, BTW) was not crazy, appeared sincere in her beliefs, and was not particularly famous beforehand.

Also baffled at the idea that defaulting would somehow keep you from paying. Anyone who thinks that works is in for a nasty shock when their mortgage comes due and they decided to save money by not paying it.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

OT, but simce when are the explotative lunatic rantings of Mikey Adams ever truly off topic?

Sorry to derail this facinating discussion, but Mike Adams has already exploited today's horrible, tragic school shootings. Wait until the anti-vax movement kicks in. Truly tragic.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

That comment sounds as if its author read ( and/ or wrote) the Bolen Report.

I was more thinking Benneth.

@Calli Arcale
You can default on a legal judgment. It's different from defaulting on a mortgage. The judge only awards the judgment; the plaintiff has to go after collecting it.

Which is actually exactly the same as defaulting on a loan -- it's the lender's responsibility to pursue you to collect. True, the law does give one advantage in the case of mortgages -- the police will assist in the eviction. But if you default on a car loan, it's up to the bank to repossess the collateral. If you default on a court judgement, as others have noted, there are tools you can use to collect. If, that is, you've actually won, which I don't believe is the case in any of the lawsuits against Randi.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

You can default on a legal judgment. It’s different from defaulting on a mortgage. The judge only awards the judgment; the plaintiff has to go after collecting it.

It is time to stomp this cockroach before Judith vibrates it to bursting and predictably runs away from the cleanup job. One cannot "default on a legal judgment." As with Judith's previous attempt at energy-lawyering, the words don't mean anything. One can have a default judgment entered, viz., fail to prosecute one's case. This comes first.

@Marc Stephens is... Uh-oh. I was wondering.

Mike Adams has already exploited today’s horrible, tragic school shootings. Wait until the anti-vax movement kicks in.

I didn't care to go there directly with my emotions a bit raw. Thanks. Tragic and ugly.

I think everyone is deathly afraid that energy healing is actually viable.

So far I am managing to hold my trepidation in check. If the fear becomes overpowering, I hope that someone can restore me with some healing energy.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 14 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Judith, you said "...I think everyone is deathly afraid that energy healing is actually viable."

Having been through the "cut-burn-poison" routine for cancer treatment myself, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that you're full of crap. Deathly afraid of a miracle cure? Give me a break! Every cancer patient I know, including me, would give everything they have, to the person who could show that "energy healing is actually viable." That person would be instantly famous and wealthy beyond belief. Come on, what do you have to lose by accepting the Randi challenge?

I dare you. Show us your magical powers. Make all of us big skeptical meanies eat our words.

@Judith, I am curious as to where you received your education and training. How is it that you first came to hold these beliefs of energy medicine being effective? Who, where and why were you first introduced to such treatments?

Were you raised in a household that was not well educated or perhaps abusive and now have an unfulfilled need for attention, or are you angry and trying to get even by exploiting others?

Denice, what do you think is going on here with Judith? Do you think she is knowingly lying or just delusional?

Frankly, at this point these questions are merely out of curiosity. Judith, I don't necessarily care what drives you to deceive and exploit other people for your own personal profit and gain, you simply have no right to do it.. None, whatsoever.

@MSII, About your OT, sorry I looked. The guy is insane. What organizations are available for non-medical professionals to join to combat this misinformation?

"You can default on a legal judgment. It’s different from defaulting on a mortgage. The judge only awards the judgment; the plaintiff has to go after collecting it."

Is Judith under the impression that this is somehow different from the defendant defending the case, losing, and having the judge awarding judgement against him? Anyway, Randi is not judgement-proof. If someone sued him and won, and then won on appeal, there are plenty of tools available to extract the sum awarded.

Here's another falsehood about the Randi Challenge:

"What’s more, the very people who offer the money are the judges. Nowhere else is this the case. It is a clear conflict of interest."

In fact, one of the conditions of participating is that you agree in advance in writing who the judges will be and what will constitute success. If you claim to be a dowser, then you agree that you can successfully trace running water through specified pipes, for example. Then the water is turned on and you try to trace it. If you can't -- and so far none ever have -- then you fail.

Everything is recorded and the judging is objective: either you met the stated standard or you didn't. That's why disappointed applicants don't successfully sue. This is not like judging in the Olympics, where the judge from this country gives a 5 and the judge from that country gives a 10.

I can't help responding to this gem from Judith, "And since the man gives you your paycheque you are not the least bit biased."

There's not one employee in the world who despises his CEO but works because he needs the money?

A local dowser has supporters that speak of her great success in finding lost people and victims of crimes. When a special needs child remained lost and alone in the woods, and a crime victim's body was not found for months, their excuse for not being able to locate the victims was that they had not yet refined their skills to work in all circumstances. It reminds me of Judith's slippery excuse as to why Reiki can't work for Fibromyalgia.

When asked about how often the dowser was accurate in finding lost victims, the response was roughly 50% of the time. The dowser had indeed narrowed down a victim's location to either West or South of the city.

You are now getting abusive. A sure sign of feeling fearful and threatened. And it's ugly. This is how lynch mobs get started. Just look into yourselves. Discussion is one thing; this is bullying. Keep it to yourselves.

Judith, try pointing out which statements are abusive. As others have pointed out with your claims about "libel", nebulous claims suggest that you have nothing to back them up and are trying to shut down argument.

*You* quoted a bunch of falsehoods about the Randi Challenge. I don't like falsehoods so I am responding to the falsehoods that you quoted. Do you consider that abusive? Do you consider that bullying? Do you consider that lynching?

I looked back and saw one comment by one commenter who wondered if you are lying or delusional. No one has responded. Some lynch mob! Some bullying!

Way back when, didn't someone call the Oracians an " intellectual lynch mob"? I thought that the Intellectual Lynch Mob used to open for the Clash in the old days.

At any rate: Marc Stephens Is Insane:
By George, I think you've ( almost) got it!
It's the rhythmn, capped by a verbal punctuation-like question.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

You are now getting abusive. A sure sign of feeling fearful and threatened. And it’s ugly. This is how lynch mobs get started. Just look into yourselves. Discussion is one thing; this is bullying. Keep it to yourselves.

Charging patients for worthless treatments is akin to robbery. Is that not abusive and predatory? It is indeed threatening to see such alternative and ineffective therapies seeping into our hospitals and mainstream medicine where patients are forced to place their lives in the hands of physicians and caretakers who should have not only have the best interest of the patient in mind, but be competent and qualified to offer such care.

Such expectations for effective treatments are reasonable and attempts to understand the what and why's as to how such bogus treatments are infiltrating our right to healthcare is most certainly not abusive. Perhaps if people understand how or why others hold such irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs, they can offer better education and assistance. I am relatively new to the discussions here, and I suggest that most here are more experienced than myself, and therefore perhaps have a better understanding. I am simply trying, in vain, to give the benefit of the doubt, rather than to simply believe what at times appears to seem obvious, and that is quacks don't care whether they are exploiting and misleading people with bogus and dangerous healthcare remedies, they do it for the sheer, raw profit and recognition. Perhaps it is I that am in a bit of denial and can't yet accept that there are so many unethical and dangerous medical 'professionals'.

I see irritation and sarcasm, not anything that could get near abuse. And if Judith is charging money for her "healing" services the irritation is well founded. I've seen my credulous poverty-level neighbors spend money on that sort of quackery. Again, it's not a question of being fearful and threatened - it's a matter of being very very impatient with nonsense and quackery. Judith, the well-worn phrase of "not even wrong" is the only polite way to describe the sheer ignorance and lunacy of your pronouncements on medicine and science. It's nowhere near "abusive" for the commentators to continue to insist that (1) there is a real world discoverable by science and (2) the extraordinary claims by Judith, Marge, whoever - be supported by even a modicum of credible evidence.

@Judith - you are the one that keeps posting here - posting obvious falsehoods & making claims with no evidence. And, you also side-track the real discussion, so I guess you're just bored....perhaps you should wave your hands in the direction of your local Cancer ward & get back to us with the results....or better yet, just leave.

@ S:

Although I can't make an assessment without knowing a person, I can make a generic statement about what I think is often going on in woo-topia:

Are they delusional or lying?
Alt med folk have a great deal invested in their belief system: it provides an identity, often a livlhiood and it enables them to re-capture self-esteem that may have been truncheoned by encounters with the real world.

You'll note that their frequent refrain is: "Experts don't know much." I would venture that many of these people DID have designs on becoming real scientists that were nipped in the bud by rejection from institutions of higher education. Amongst those I survey there are very few with standard education and training in life sciences ( even AJW was thwarted in his quest to be a surgeon: he didn't finish the training in Canada). So axes begin grinding.

Thus, their self-appraised genius is not validated by authorities so the experts must be wrong. Being a maverick is a full-time job so they seek a quasi-education in pseudo-science which is much easier to obtain than the standard.They set themselves up as alternative experts who will show those dodgy old experts!

( continued)

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

"One is summarily rejected if s/he is deemed crazy"

@S, I did not mean to suggest that you should not have asked that question; I think it's very reasonable. I've asked myself whether Judith is delusional or lying many times as well. If we'd all leapt in with abusive answers to your question Judith might have had some justification for claiming "lynch mob". But we didn't.

For the record, Randi has said that some applicants genuinely believe they have psychic powers. They are not lying but not delusional; they have fooled themselves by exactly the processes discussed in these comment threads: failing to recognize the common cognitive blind spots that we all have.

Remember the scientists who believed they had found N-rays? But the difference between them and pseudoscientists is that when they were proven wrong, they gave it up, however painfully and reluctantly.

Thank you, LW.

Judith,

You are “cherry-picking” cancers.

Pointing out exceptions to a gross generalization like, "Conventional medicine’s track record on cancer is pathetic", is not the same as "cherry-picking".

And one could argue that a large part of that improvement in survival is improvements in early detection, which allow for more successful surgical interventions.

I agree, but perhaps you have overlooked the fact that early detection through screening programs, and surgical intervention are conventional medicine. If you were a regular reader of this blog you would know that overdiagnosis is often discussed here. That's one reason I chose to mention the improvement in survival in childhood leukemia, where early detection and overdiagnosis are not an issue.

Even if you look at prostate cancer, the commonest cancer in men, where you might expect screening to have increased apparent incidence, you see an impressive improvement. In 1975 incidence (per 100,000) in men over 65 was 916.56, and in 2009 it was 772.76. In 1975 5-year survival was 69.2% and in 2004 it was 99.9%, that's a 99.7% fall in the number of men who died within 5 years of diagnosis (from 30.8% to 0.1%). Either there has been a large fall in real prostate cancer incidence, and a large increase in early detection, or treatment has greatly improved. I don't think it is fair to portray an improvement in survival of this magnitude in the commonest cancer in men as "pathetic". I could also point out that it was medical science that discovered the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, which has led to the reduction in incidence of and deaths from lung cancer over the past decade or more.

And the news for those children successfully treated for leukemia with all the best poisons medical science can offer is not all that rosy

I suppose you think it would be better if they chose energy healing instead, in which case they would be dead long before any long term side effects became apparent. Only about 2% of childhood leukemia patients get secondary cancers, which is better than almost certain death, don't you think?

All the studies you cite for energy healing pertain either to Reiki or to Therapeutic Touch. There are no studies for the Domancic method or (other than Bengston’s) the Bengston method.

Are you seriously asking us to believe that these various manifestations of wishful thinking and flimflammery are actually different modalities? I suppose if Domancic and Bengston were studied and failed, you would telling us that Quantum Touch and Matrix Energetics are the real deal. There's no end to that kind of game.

You belittle the successes that conventional medicine has had with cancer, grossly exaggerate the side effects of conventional treatment, ignore the horrific effects of untreated cancer, and pretend that energy healing offers a realistic alternative. You have offered no good reason at all to think that energy healing of any flavor offers any hope at all to cancer patients.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Judith

If calling an obvious scam a scam and its practitioners liars, delusional or both is abusive - so be it. It is the very lack of abuse , brought about by excessive politeness and the recent politically correct notion that all ideas should be given equal consideration that has let scammers like you and Burzynski flourish.

It is time that the scientific community picked up the cudgels and called proponents of moronic modalities what they are; morons.

So a woo-meister begins making his case to the world, propped up by self-advertisment while masquerading as a scientist, cargo cult fashion, by appropriating the language and demeanor of science. Science as portrayed in adverts.

Do I think that some of these people are delusional? Partially. They may believe in their own press and follow their own regimes ( see Gary Null, Mike Adams). However they exaggerate their own beliefs in order to capture an audience and sell them ideas and products.

There is a fine line between self-delusion and lying to others. For example, a woo might truly believe that taking mega-doses of vitamins will cure cancer or SMI BUT will say to he audience that it always works. Do they REALLY believe this? I don't know.

If you listen to woo-meisters, as I have, you begin to hear the same stories, re-told and elaborated over time: Null has a few set pieces that get better and better; he narrates a tale about a relative who had a farm- with each telling, the farm supplies more and more perfect products and the relative grows in health and age- other tales include staying with a down-to-earth farm family in Italy, doing psi/ energy healing research and nutritional research on rats with cancer and on plants; curing people with aids or cancer with mega-doses of vitamin C etc. Like the game of telephone, each transition brings transformation.

Some of the venom reserved for scientists and supporters of SBM reveal envy of the expertise and acceptance that that person has received by society in general. Then society in general is called out- universities, organisations,governmenets and the media- as being corrupt and un-spiritual. Many rants are fuelled by hatred of the *elite*. Group efforts -like AoA and TMR- exhibit vitriolic disdain for their *betes noires*,i.e. those who reveal alt med's prevarication as a career or hobby. Phony scientists hate the real ones . Messengers bringing bad news are despised and ( metaphorically) shot.

Often, the stuff I read reveals black-and-white thinking, stereotyping and a startling start of understanding the motivation of others. These characteristics resemble some of those that children exhibit prior to adolescence when their ideas about other people and society begins to become more subtle and complex. That is, in MOST people.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Rose: “One is summarily rejected if s/he is deemed crazy”

Very good, you accurately copied and pasted from Judith's comment.

@ Denice: Just so. As I've said before, your comments are among those that continue to educate me and expand my thinking. Helpful, too, on account of my current interests and a contemplated project.

@ THS:

That's what I'm here for: the pay ain't much but the perks are incredible. And it's not like I've never gotten complimented in RL- it is nothing new but it never gets old.
I also like mirrors.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

I suppose if Domancic and Bengston were studied and failed, you would telling us that Quantum Touch and Matrix Energetics are the real deal.

Don't forget Russian Organ Regeneration and BEAM™ Therapy ("a simple yet powerful, safe, relatively gentle, effective and efficient method of releasing past unprocessed emotions along with associated toxins"), which Judith also has in her bag of tricks.

And... "BEAM Therapy" is essentially the despicable German New Medicine in New Age garb. Nice company you keep, Judith.

Current problems and issues whether emotional, psychological, physical or spiritual are the result of unresolved emotional traumas, which in turn, led to dysfunctional perceptions, beliefs and behaviour patterns.

@Narad, re: "Reiki Valley Sunday" --

*belated but heartfelt standing ovation* :-)

By Scottynuke (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

Wait, Judith does organ regeneration? My sister works with the transplant unit of a local hospital. There are so few available organs that they have to make heart-rending decisions about who gets an organ and who waits ... and waits ... and maybe dies waiting. Judith, call the transplant unit of a major hospital. Help those desperate patients. Don't waste your talent on pain relief and rashes -- get in there and save lives!

@LW:

Wait, Judith does organ regeneration?

Apparently, it can regrow teeth as well.

@Scottynuke:

Thank you, thankyouverymuch.

@Judith:

You are now getting abusive. A sure sign of feeling fearful and threatened. And it’s ugly. This is how lynch mobs get started. Just look into yourselves. Discussion is one thing; this is bullying. Keep it to yourselves.

It's not as though you're being menaced with pineapples or something.

You are “cherry-picking” cancers.

Person A: This tree has no fruit. Instead of pouring all our efforts into orchardry, we would be better-advised to examine the possibilities of Psychic Shrubbery.

Person B: The tree does indeed have fruit! Look!

Person A: Ah, but those were cherry-picked.
----------------------------------------------------------------
They may also have been low-hanging fruit, but this is not relevant here. They taste better than red herrings.

It’s not as though you’re being menaced with pineapples or something.

The self-defense lessons haven't reached pineapples yet.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

It was a viciously sharp slice of mango, wasn't it, sir.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

LH
In my anger that was all I was capable of posting.
Judith like Burzyzski takes advantage of gullible people, giving them false hope and putting off treatment that could help them. She has been asked over and over again for proof that energy healing can help and all she can do is pull anecdotes out of some orifice or other. But wait she then says she only believes her own anecdotes, noone else's, so why on earth should anyone else believe her anecdotes?
She says she knows her energy healing works because people say they feel better. As an asthmatic, I have felt better when my pulse ox was 94 than I did when it was 97, but that is my anecdote so Judith won't believe it.
As a cancer patient, I am furious that she can actually defend quacks and charlatans who bilk cancer patients and rob them of the time conventional treatment would have given them

@Rose, I do apologize for thinking ill of you. Anger is a totally understandable response.

LW
Sorry for the wrong initials.
I know people will grasp at anything that seems to give them hope when they are fighting for their lives. People who take advantage of that are lower than low.

One thing I will say for Judith is that she does not engage in the abject sadism of some altmeddlers. I refer to those who convince old people who live alone and have no one who cares except their dog, to give up the dog because it interferes with the magic. Or those who convince people to have all their teeth pulled for no good reason.

It's not saying much, but I don't put Judith in the sadist category.

"I refer to those who convince old people who live alone and have no one who cares except their dog, to give up the dog because it interferes with the magic.", or those who do this to the disabled.

Why is that after these things happen, everyone seems so outraged and surprised, but while it is happening under their nose, with their shared patients, people don't want to speak up and intervene?

I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but in large part, I agree with MarkL.

MarkL: If calling an obvious scam a scam and its practitioners liars, delusional or both is abusive – so be it. It is the very lack of abuse , brought about by excessive politeness and the recent politically correct notion that all ideas should be given equal consideration that has let scammers like you and Burzynski flourish.

@S
Pathetic. I have, however, heard of a condominium corporation taking a wheel-chair-bound condo owner to court whose only companion was a dog because there was a no-pet clause.

@MSII
You haven't posted in a while and I remain intrigued about your back. You didn't say what was wrong with it, but clearly physio didn't do much if they then tried to send you to chiropractic and acupuncture. I am actually surprised that physiotherapists would have suggested something like that. I thought they didn't like the competition.

At any rate, did you rule them out altogether out of principle, or were you more averse to the idea of having to pay for it? If you could have tried either for free, would you have?

I would have tried chiropractic (I have at some point and it was not that different from physio), but I don't think I would try acupuncture, free or not, on account of the needles.

So, given that it supposedly does nothing, and no one is sticking needles into you, would you try a free Reiki session? Or are you opposed on principle?

Would you consider trying, for instance, Shiatsu, which is just a form of massage and instead of needles uses thumbs?

@LW
Check this out (it’s a comment on a blog about Randi):

Yes a comment on a blog: well done Judith and how critically-minded of you. There are many public records of the failed lawsuits against Mr. Randi and yet you chose a disgruntled "commenter". I don't work for Mr. Randi and I can verify what Pareidolius stated having actually read some of the disgruntled losers' failed lawsuits. And using the shill gambit is pathetic and lazy; Pareidolius did not say what capacity he was even involved as there are many volunteers for JREF and it doesn't even matter if he's paid unless you want to turn that mirror on yourself.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

Pathetic. I have, however, heard of a condominium corporation taking a wheel-chair-bound condo owner to court whose only companion was a dog because there was a no-pet clause.

What exactly are you claiming is pathetic, the comment or the fact that practitioners do tell people that they are energetically incompatible with their pets and should get rid of them, or other bogus completely unsubstantiated reasons they should get rid of their pets?

Telling someone that they are innately and energetically ill (such as through the NAET muscle testing technique) and are thus incompatible to even possess their pet is quite different than someone being given informed consent via a lease on a rental property with explicitly states that pets are not allowed.

@S: "Or those who do this to the disabled"

Absolutely. I mentioned old people because I was thinking of specific cases I'd read about, but the bonds between humans and animals are deep and profound, and to wantonly sever them is simple cruelty.

I don’t think I would try acupuncture, free or not, on account of the needles.

Now, now. As antennas, they're way above your ponderomotive frequency range.

Judith,

I think you're mixing me up with someone else. I don't remember ever posting about my back, I've never seen a physiotherapist in my life and wouldn't ever consider acupuncture, chiro, or reiki. There's a world of difference between acupuncture and a nice massage. A masseuse isn't trying to realign my Qi and correct body energy imbalances. A massage feels nice, with or without a happy ending.

That's the thing: I'd be much more inclined to believe in reiki if you actually did touch your customer. It's the hands-off magic energy distance mumbo jumbo that immediately extinguishes any plausibility.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 15 Dec 2012 #permalink

@S
Pathetic that people should be telling people to get rid of their pets, of course.

Sorry @MSII, I think it was @Al Kimeea.

Reiki can be hands on or hands off.

Judith, the point is that Reiki is not massage. Massage can provide substantial benefits depending on the condition being treated, Reiki can not.

So Judith.... how about Randi's challenge?

Reiki can be hands on or hands off.

You know, I've asked over and over again. Why the hands?

^ Lost blockquote in the foregoing.

@S
Yawn. So you keep saying. I personally have had greater benefits from Reiki than massage. All you are saying is that you personally have not had benefits from Reiki and you are making the experience universal. As far as I know you are not yet the Universe, although you may think you are.

@Judith, Answer Narad's question. Why the hands?

All we are saying, Judith, is that the benefits from Reiki have never been credibly documented. You are the only one claiming to have benefited, so that hardly makes the experience universal.

Unless you may think you are the Universe.

@Shay
Does everything have to be documented for you? Does it have to be documented, for instance, that chocolate ice cream tastes good? Can you not have personal experience of something and know that you enjoy it?

I don't know why @Narad is asking about hands. If he were to give some context to his question, it might be more comprehensible. One could possibly imagine giving Reiki with one's nose or tushie, but it really wouldn't be the same now, would it?

I don’t know why @Narad is asking about hands. If he were to give some context to his question, it might be more comprehensible.

SOME KIND OF CONTEXT? You invite people to hold their hand up to a f*cking picture of one on your own site. The entire sham is teleologically predicated. If you can't explain this, it utterly collapses.

@Judith - are you seeking some kind of personal vindication by continuing to post here?

A silly analogy, Judith. You didn't say that you enjoyed Reiki -- you're making serious healthcare claims for your product and you refuse to back them up.

@ Denice Walter - the education angle is a new one on me and quite ironally funny, but at the same time I wonder if better ed would help those like JudithMarg or that lawyer I keep mentioning - you can lead a woovian to knowledge but you can't make them think.

Judith, I'll tell you what's wrong with my back when you tell me which bits of biology/chemistry/physics/physiology are made up like the shite you sell.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Does everything have to be documented for you? Does it have to be documented, for instance, that chocolate ice cream tastes good? Can you not have personal experience of something and know that you enjoy it?

Really dumb analogy indeed. Enjoying something is a matter of opinion; that's not what you are claiming but rather that Reiki works for somesuch. So yes, it does need to be documented as working and as long as you can't, it's indefensible.

I don’t know why @Narad is asking about hands. If he were to give some context to his question, it might be more comprehensible. One could possibly imagine giving Reiki with one’s nose or tushie, but it really wouldn’t be the same now, would it?

Seriously? And "administering" Reiki with one's tushie or nose would be as effective.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Judith - sure, chocolate tastes good, but the moment you claim chocolate cures Cancer, you bet I'm going to ask you for evidence.....

@Judith

And the news for those children successfully treated for leukemia with all the best poisons medical science can offer is not all that rosy

As usual, the cranks show that their problem isn't that their ideas aren't being taken seriously. Their problem is with the medical treatments they don't like.

The thing is, the offer of a million bucks is totally fake. For one thing, nobody can apply unless they are famous – that is, only if they have a media presence.

That's fairly old news. Try reading the Randi site. Besides, is it really all that hard to get your local rag to write about you? All you have to do is present somebody you've healed (or heal a journalist!) and you've got your story. After all, what you're doing works right? So exactly how hard is it to convince a writer if what you're doing works?

"Hoops" is fairly old hat too - Randi and his organisers work *with you* to create a test. If you don't like the arrangements, they will accommodate you as best as they can. If you finally don't reach an agreement, you back out.

As for nobody getting past the first round - could it be because under test conditions, no one can prove their claims? Which is why you never provide evidence. If it were so easy to prove, you'd have scores of it already.

What’s more, the very people who offer the money are the judges. Nowhere else is this the case. It is a clear conflict of interest.

Uhuh. And yet, there have been a number of examples where the "judges" have included an audience. You're even allowed to bring a friend, if I remember right. (Also what LW said)

t impresses people who have not read the rules… and through the donations Randi solicits, he pays himself as the “contest” administrator a cool quarter million bucks annually. That is what I call a racket.

Uhuh. And yet if one actually does bother to read the rules, you'd see that the JREF million dollars is held in a trust account, which can't be accessed except for paying out the winner of the challenge. They even provide the bank info so you can call the bank and confirm all of it yourself.

I actually spent a few months reading through all the various email discussions, forum discussions and other things about the challenge. Usually the people posting the sour grapes are the testees who just can't understand *why* they can't just turn up and do their thing, but are instead required to actually have some sort of scientific method in place to control for biases. That they have to follow rules at all gripes at them.

But hey, let's not bother reading the info provided by JREF, and just take the word from some random commenter on the internet who hasn't watched JREF volunteers go *out of their way* to be accommodating. (Not that Judith cares: she clearly considers any and every anecdote to be worth exactly the same as evidence anyway)

You are now getting abusive. A sure sign of feeling fearful and threatened. And it’s ugly. This is how lynch mobs get started. Just look into yourselves. Discussion is one thing; this is bullying. Keep it to yourselves.

And now we've devolved into the "criticism is bullying" canard. We *are* discussing: we're discussing your lack of evidence and unwillingness to provide it.

But hey, since you didn't bother to do it before, maybe you'd like to state which comments are libelous? And why?

By the way, you have an option of LEAVING. You don't like the criticism, don't enter the conversation.

As far as I know you are not yet the Universe, although you may think you are.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA, ah, where do I send the bill for my broken irony meter?

Does everything have to be documented for you? Does it have to be documented, for instance, that chocolate ice cream tastes good? Can you not have personal experience of something and know that you enjoy it?

Once again, you can't tell the difference between something that is OBJECTIVE and something that is SUBJECTIVE. "Feeling good" may be a nice outcome for reiki, but you're the one who says it can do more than that. So yes, for everything other than "feeling good", evidence would be nice. I wouldn't bother saying please because I know there's no evidence forthcoming and never will be from you.

Here's what Judith says "cancer cures aren't working, look at the evidence" - and compare to "reiki works fine, here's an anecdote". Double standards are always in play for her.

Yet another tour of distractions away from the fact that MARG nor JUDITH, the contemptible purse-snatchers of science, HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY HEALING WORKS. Plus, Judith made threats of libel/harassment which are hollow, vague and disingenuous; an attempt to chill speech and scare critics.

@Judith, Since you claim that Reiki is an effective treatment method and can be successfully administered from a distance, as well as in person without the practitioner ever touching the patient, then explain why it would ever be necessary for the practitioner to touch the patient? You specifically state that sometimes Reiki is administered by touching the patient. Please provide a listing of the factors which are used to distinguish between when it is necessary for the practitioner to touch the patient vs when the patient can be treated without touching?

@Lawrence
I must enjoy the abuse. I certainly don't get any validation.

@S
It's entirely a matter of personal preference, the client's and the practitioner's.

@Shay
I am not only one claiming to have benefited. There are many others out there. Those would be the testimonials your lot calls lies. It really does come down to some people being able to feel it and others not. The energy is there for anyone to feel; people who are stuck in their heads, like many Westerners and apparently everyone on this discussion board, just don't. In fact pretty much anyone can be taught to feel it if they are willing to learn. I work in a community centre where there is a very active seniors' program, and someone started teaching them qigong, and in very short order many of them were able to feel the energy. You all who don't feel it call it imagination. But that's your own willful blindness -- and it's literally willful, because it's your will that's making you unable to feel it.

"_the_ only one"

But that’s your own willful blindness — and it’s literally willful, because it’s your will that’s making you unable to feel it.

Meaning that Reiki does not work for us, because we are not willfully allowing it to work? Our willful blindness is blocking it from working? Meaning Reiki could heal our cancer, and treat infections if only we were willing? Meaning no amount of treatment will be successful, if we are not willing and allowing it to be successful?

Do I understand you correctly, Judith?

@Judith

Ah, yes the "East vs West" approach. Sigh... I fell for that one once. When I tried qigong and it didn't work for me and I wasn't at all skeptical about it. I truly believed it would work. But I guess my anecdote doesn't count.

But hey, let's drag in yet more logical fallacies. And the biggest one of all: it's all your negative energy that's stopping it from working, boohoohoo.

Sigh...

Yet another tour of distractions away from the fact that MARG nor JUDITH, the contemptible purse-snatchers of science, HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY HEALING WORKS. Plus, Judith made threats of libel/harassment which are hollow, vague and disingenuous; an attempt to chill speech and scare critics.

@S
Meaning that you are not able to feel the energy because your ego interferes. Whether it would work or not is a separate issue. Please note that I do not make the claim for _Reiki_ that it can heal cancer. You are using Reiki as a generic term for all energy healing modalities. Domancic (in his movie) cites an instance where a breast cancer tumour decreased in size substantially over a four day course of treatment. Bengston claims cancer cures. Reiki does not.

The issue about people not feeling energy is that the discussion would be entirely different if they were able to. Then they would say "there is something there". It may not be strong enough to cure cancer, but there is definitely something there. Then one could get into a discussion about how to make it better. Now the discussion is "does it or does it not exist", which from my perspective is a giant waste of time. If science would acknowledge its existence and put the same amount of effort into improving it as it now does into creating chemotherapy drugs that extend life, you can be pretty certain that in a few years energy healing will dependably cure cancer.

Judith: "in very short order many of them were able to feel the energy"

No doubt. So could the Therapeutic Touch practitioners that Emily Rosa tested. Until she tested them and it became evident that they could not.

Why don't you take the Randi Challenge, Judith? Just proving that you can "feel the energy" in an environment where you cannot be fooled by coincidence or fool yourself would go a long way toward convincing skeptics.

The energy is there for anyone to feel; people who are stuck in their heads, like many Westerners and apparently everyone on this discussion board, just don’t.

It's Calgon time! Of course, the funny thing is that reiki isn't actually popular in Japan.

Meaning that you are not able to feel the energy because your ego interferes.

Another classic trope of New Agey blowhards. Define precisely what you mean by "ego," Judith.

@Judith

@S
Meaning that you are not able to feel the energy because your ego interferes.

So we are back to the usual energy-healing bullsh*t of "if it doesn't work, it must be the patient's fault" ?

@S: "Please provide a listing of the factors which are used to distinguish between when it is necessary for the practitioner to touch the patient vs when the patient can be treated without touching?"

I think it's magnetism. If patient and practitioner are attracted to each other, they touch.

Meaning that you are not able to feel the energy because your ego interferes.

Of course, blame the recipient; it relieves the "practitioner" of failing to provide an effective treatment. Try this on Judith; if one has a bacterial infection and is administered antibiotics but the patient does not think they will or even want them to work, how does this interfere with the efficacy of the antibiotics? If Reiki works, then the recipients mindset should not interfere. Why can't Reiki overcome resistance?

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

It really is like trying to explain music to someone born deaf, with the difference is that the deaf person can't do anything about it, whereas your lot just won't. I really don't give a fig about Emily Rosa or the not-so-amazing Randi. If you choose feel it, you will. If you just choose to blather on about it being bullshit, go right ahead and live happily with that.

The ego, Narad, is that thing you and I hold on to that seems to have strong opinions about things.

I think it’s magnetism. If patient and practitioner are attracted to each other, they touch.

Funny, that's what I'm thinking. It certainly would explain why the likes of Judith never did a thing for me.

@Judith: "If science would acknowledge its ["energy"] existence and put the same amount of effort into improving it as it now does into creating chemotherapy drugs that extend life, you can be pretty certain that in a few years energy healing will dependably cure cancer."

But here's the thing, Judith. You could do that. You could keep careful records of every person treated, exactly what they were treated for, and what the results were, with follow-up by yourself or third parties. Anyone can do science; Emily Rosa did science at age ten.

In terms of clinical trials, you have a huge advantage over someone like Orac, because you don't require any expensive equipment; you don't need to admit the patient to the hospital; you don't need to worry about infection control (well, except to the extent that anyone has to worry about flu and the like).

You may say that clinical trials won't be accepted unless they're done by the "big guys"; that is false. I personally know a physician who ran his own clinical trial at his own expense, published numerous papers, and made a big difference in his corner of medicine.

You start out at a disadvantage because there have been so many charlatans in your field. But careful, honest science is the way to win over the skeptics. Some will never believe, sure, but as thenewme commented, cancer patients would dearly, dearly love for energy medicine to work.

I lost my beloved stepmother to cancer. We would have done anything, paid any price, to save her. If it meant being laughed at for our gullibility, fine, we'd have gone for energy medicine anyway. If it worked. If there were any evidence that it worked. If there were any reason to believe that it *could* work. But there isn't.

Why don't you supply that evidence, Judith?

Judith,

The issue about people not feeling energy is that the discussion would be entirely different if they were able to. Then they would say “there is something there”.

Using suggestion and 'hypnosis' I can reliably make people think that there is definitely "something there". For example I can make people think they feel tingling, heat, pain, or even numbness so they apparently feel nothing when I stick a needle in them. I have used similar techniques to get rid of headaches and make a cold dry up temporarily, but none of this is objectively real, and no mysterious energy is required to explain it.

It may not be strong enough to cure cancer, but there is definitely something there.

If there is definitely something there, why can't anyone detect it, or its effects, or anything definite and replicable about it?

Then one could get into a discussion about how to make it better. Now the discussion is “does it or does it not exist”, which from my perspective is a giant waste of time.

From my perspective, discussing how to make something work better, when the only evidence for it even existing is pathetically weak anecdotal evidence that we know is extremely unreliable, is simply foolish. It's like people talking about the mechanisms of homeopathy and acupuncture, when the best evidence is consistent with them being nothing but placebo, just like energy healing. First prove it exists, then we can talk about how it works and how to make it work better.

If science would acknowledge its existence and put the same amount of effort into improving it as it now does into creating chemotherapy drugs that extend life, you can be pretty certain that in a few years energy healing will dependably cure cancer.

Now that is simply ridiculous. You obstinately cling onto this belief that your subjective experience is somehow infallible when there is overwhelming evidence that it isn't at all.

I have mentioned this before, but Derren Brown's 'Miracles For Sale' (blocked in the UK, but I have ways around that) it is well worth watching. He teaches a man many of the tricks of faith healing (not energy healing, but there are marked similarities), and gets him to impersonate a faith healer on stage in Texas. The section where he goes out on the street and heals people is particularly interesting - you will find it starting at 56:38 - the very first person who is 'healed' reports a pain in his leg reduces from a level of 10 down to zero. Fake faith healing can do exactly what you are doing Judith, though I doubt you can see it.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen
Interesting question for you: when someone is told they have an 8 per cent chance of surviving a given cancer with the help of chemotherapy, what explanation does the medical community give for 92 that don't? Why is a particular person in one group or another? The answer is that there are a number of variables, and one of those variables is the mystery of healing. Some people do; some people don't. People who should die, live; and some people who should live, die. Would you be able to give an explanation?

Another question: placebo. How does it work? Is faith healing that works fake? By definition it cannot be. The person had faith the healing would work; it did; therefore it was faith healing. Anything wrong with that? "Fake faith healing" is an oxymoron.

I believe I read on the subject of placebo that new drugs are more effective out in the field than the old because physicians talk them up. Over time, their effectiveness decreases. I've read that placebo works better given as an injection than as a pill; and a capsule works better than a tablet. Some colours work better than others. Why?

A good chunk of healing that goes on as a result of medical interventions is placebo, whether the intervention is a pill or an operation (as the sham knee operations and angina operations proved).

So why people heal or don't heal is mystery. Is anyone studying it? It would have to be a large scale multi-disciplinary effort., and I am not so sure how well all the scientists, sociologists, psychologists and philosophers needed would work together.

So on to energy healing. I don't know how much of it is placebo. But say someone comes to me on crutches who has been told by their doctor that they need a knee operation. I treat them and they feel the energy. I tell them about the cases I have seen where the knee was fixed and the person didn't need a cane or crutches or an operation or whatever. As I treat them they feel better and better, and when they get up, they are able to walk without pain. The next day they are still able to walk. On the third day maybe they get some of the pain back, but they still don't need the cane to walk. They see me again, the pain goes away, yadi yadi yada, and the upshot is that by the time they see their doctor again, they don't need the operation. I think you would agree that's a net benefit to everyone, except perhaps the people who would have been paid to do the operation, which is not an issue in Britain, because they receive salaries rather than get remunerated for "piece work".

So what worked? The patient clearly healed himself: is all healing not self-healing? How much of it was placebo? How much of it was "energy"? How much of it was me suggesting to the patient that other people who received this kind of healing didn't need operations? And ultimately how much does it matter how much of it was placebo?

The scientific community has their nose so stuck in beakers that they cannot see the mystery of healing. They cannot see how much of it is placebo or other considerations. And the issue is that if healing or improvement from cancer can occur with something less horrific than radiation and chemo, it would be of net benefit for society in terms of reduction of human suffering and costs. But the scientific community's nose is stuck in beakers and the only solution they can think of is biochemical.

OMFG! I'm gone for 24 hrs and we're back to Qi?

OK. people who do qi gong- or suchlike- experience *feelings of energy* -
when you start paying attention to your body, especially under instruction, you may feel many interesting and amazing sensations-
sometimes when I play tennis I feel as if I can fly- doesn't mean I can-
however because you FEEL things described by a pseudo-scientific system of meridians and qi vessels doesn't mean that there ARE meridians and qi vessels. ( -btw- I did t'ai chi for years). These are poetical, pre-scientific explanantions for phenomena that can be much better explained by SB physiological psychology. And people do study sensation.

And how does an "ego" get in the way if it is your link to the externmal world via senation?
Oh wait, that's the old-fashioned ego, not the New Age-y ego.

I have to go do my photos..

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen, That is an absolutely fascinating, yet disturbing video. People are so easily scammed.

Judith, "I tell them about the cases I have seen where the knee was fixed and the person didn’t need a cane or crutches or an operation or whatever.

Judith, First of all, you are not qualified to assess whether the patient was properly diagnosed to begin with, yet you are dissuading them from seeking further medical care.

Secondly, "all healing is not self-healing" unless you are trying to play with words so as to reel people in to your game.

Thirdly, Who sets the prices on placebos? Do you tell a dying patient that they have nothing to live for as they will be dead in a short time, so why not spend every last penny on your placebo - after all, they can't take their money with them to the grave, so what have they got to lose?

Call it like it is, Judith. You could have a very successful honest practice doing hands-on/hands-off relaxation for a certain clientele. Be good with that, and don't make false claims of healing infections and cancers that you can not and WILL not attempt to evidence.

@S
I am going to start calling you names soon. Where is the part where I am dissuading them from further medical care? After I treat them they go back to their doctor to assess their condition. Or did you miss the part where I say "by the time they see their doctor again they don't need the operation"?

How serious a case of tunnel vision do you suffer from?

The ego, Narad, is that thing you and I hold on to that seems to have strong opinions about things.

That's the dumbest definition to accompany this occultist slogan that I've ever heard. "Seems to have"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? "It" doesn't really have "strong opinions"? "It's" just foolin' with ya? How exactly does one "hold on to" an opinion-having psychic "thing"? Since when do "things" have opinions anyway? Do I now need to wonder whether there's subterranean tensions brewing between the mismatched elements of the flatware? Take heed: "the thrust of occultist argument is always towards physical reductionism and mechanization."

Of course, the statement is also monstrously hypocritical, as your psychic barge is so laden with "strong opinions," which are also apparently so precious that the slightest self-examination represents some sort of grievous indignity, that it's a miracle it hasn't capsized.

I believe I read on the subject of placebo that new drugs are more effective out in the field than the old because physicians talk them up.

Of course, you have a demonstrably awful track record when it comes to being able to accurately report things that you've happened upon.

@Judith:

A good chunk of healing that goes on as a result of medical interventions is placebo, whether the intervention is a pill or an operation (as the sham knee operations and angina operations proved).

But say someone comes to me on crutches who has been told by their doctor that they need a knee operation. I treat them and they feel the energy. I tell them about the cases I have seen where the knee was fixed and the person didn’t need a cane or crutches or an operation or whatever. ... and the upshot is that by the time they see their doctor again, they don’t need the operation.

So energy medicine works about as well as sham knee surgery.

@S
I am going to start calling you names soon.

I'm sure this effort would provide tremendous amusement.

Where is the part where I am dissuading them from further medical care?

You're skipping the part where you try to dissuade people from medical care without slinging some bucks at a Domancic fakir first.

After I treat them they go back to their doctor to assess their condition. Or did you miss the part where I say “by the time they see their doctor again they don’t need the operation”?

As you didn't trouble yourself to provide details, let's take meniscus tears as an example. These will symptomatically improve on their own. The underlying injury, however, does not "heal," and if it's not addressed surgically, one is left with a ready invitation to further worsen it with ease. People nonetheless will put off arthroscopic surgery when the pain abates.

How serious a case of tunnel vision do you suffer from?

Campbell's Irony Soup, "so thick you could eat it with a fork."

^ Another blockquote fail, I hope it's still interpretable, etc., etc.

So why people heal or don’t heal is mystery. Is anyone studying it?

It is being studied so apparently it remains a complete mystery to you and I'm sure you like it that way so you can hawk your 'services' to equally credulous and ignorant people.

The scientific community has their nose so stuck in beakers that they cannot see the mystery of healing.

Better than having their heads' stuck up their arses like you woo-meisters to keep yourselves sufficiently in denial of physiology. Everything can be explained by science eventually. There is no need to fill in the gaps with magic, mystery or occultism. It's okay to say, "we can't explain a particular phenomenon." It's the honest thing to do actually whereas your hubris compels you to claim you have the power to heal.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Krebiozen: Thanks for the conformation bias link. Helpful for me to to read & re-read. I haven't got myself in the mood to watch the video.

@THS
Love the Freudian slip. Yes, you all appear to be suffering form "conformation bias".

@Science Mom
Please cite those studies that specifically target how healing actually happens. I would love to read them.

@THS
Also known as "conformity bias".

@Judith:

Interesting question for you: when someone is told they have an 8 per cent chance of surviving a given cancer with the help of chemotherapy, what explanation does the medical community give for 92 that don’t? Why is a particular person in one group or another? The answer is that there are a number of variables, and one of those variables is the mystery of healing. Some people do; some people don’t. People who should die, live; and some people who should live, die. Would you be able to give an explanation?

Judith's explanation is that if the patient dies when they should have lived it's their own fault because they had a bad ego.

But actually, Judith, if there's a clinical trial that shows only 8% success, that trial may be abandoned because there are more promising prospects. But that doesn't mean research is forbidden.  Someone else may pick it up. 

Scientists don't just throw up their hands and blame the patient if he dies when he should have lived, nor do they just throw up their hands and give thanks for the miracle if he lives when he should have died.  They get curious. They wonder if there's something that everyone has missed, something that will save the next patient.

Of course, all this presumes that the trial results are actually reported so scientists can get curious about anomalies, which is one reason Burzynski's failure to publish is so deplorable: maybe there's an anomaly among his many, many failures that would point to something he missed, something that might save the next patient.  

Please cite those studies that specifically target how healing actually happens.

Right, now "healing" must be some sort of amorphous blob because this is the only level of ideation that you're able to manage. Not how it works, "sensei."

@LW
You do get, don't you, that some chemotherapy drugs are about 8 per cent effective, and they are still used.

@Science Mom
Everything can be explained by science eventually. There is no need to fill in the gaps with magic, mystery or occultism. It’s okay to say, “we can’t explain a particular phenomenon.”

Precisely. We call it magic and occultism now because we don't understand the phenomenon. Just how long do you think it would have taken for you to burned as a witch if you turned up in the middle ages with some of today's technology?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23093309
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3308330/

Just a couple of examples of why and how different responses to antigens occur. Physiological and genetic differences that you attribute to magic or mystery. As DW has pointed out numerous times; the biggest critics of science and medicine are those quite deficient in the requisite education. Somehow, I don't see Reiki "classes" on par with what we learn.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Judith,

Please believe I mean this in the nicest possible way. You've repeatedly stated that you believe that people who read this blog are afraid of the possibility of Reiki (or other modes of energy healing being wrong). You don't state motives for why we might be afraid, but one might reasonably infer that it would be some combination of loss of livelihood (assuming that some make their livings from jobs that would be eliminated), loss of prestige, shame from being wrong, and having one's mind blown by a paradigm shift that would, in the vernacular, rock one's world.

Now, this (along with the "you're full of hate") gambit is often used by people when someone doesn't agree with them. You frequently hear that if someone doesn't agree with a position it's an expression of either fear or hate. Indeed, you often see this kind of thing inappropriately labeled as a phobia. It's been my belief that these kinds of statements belittle actual fear or hate. There are people who have unreasonable fears just like there are those who have unreasonable hates. When people are labelled as such when they neither fear nor hate the topic, merely disagree with what someone says, is a way to make that person appear irrational and to discredit what they say.

I dislike doing that, myself, though clearly it's a rhetorical trick that serves others quite well.

All that said, I wonder whether you fear the possibility that you're the one wrong in this case? What would it mean to you if it could be incontrovertibly proven there were no encompassing energy field that you could manipulate with your mind and hands and use to ease the suffering of others?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

You do get, don’t you, that some chemotherapy drugs are about 8 per cent effective, and they are still used.

Either be specific or note that this routine is well recognizable.

Precisely. We call it magic and occultism now because we don’t understand the phenomenon.

No, what you do is called occultism because it is occultism thanks to following in a long, sorry tradition of exploitative, supernaturalist pseudoscientific and philosophical fraud.

We call it magic and occultism now because we don’t understand the phenomenon.

I call things "magic" and "occultism" when there is no evidence of a phenomenon to explain.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Interesting question for you: when someone is told they have an 8 per cent chance of surviving a given cancer with the help of chemotherapy, what explanation does the medical community give for 92 that don’t?

I've not been in this situation, and am not a doctor (nor do I play one on TV). However, I would suspect that the answer would go along the following lines:
1. Cancer x is a debilitating and deadly disease that, if left untreated, will kill n% of people within y years, and which will cause a number of unpleasant symptoms.
2. We currently cannot tell in advance the exact course of a particular case. This is partially because we are unable to fully determine the current state of your cancer (has it metastasized, how rapidly does it grow, etc.) and partially because there is significant statistical variation between patients with this cancer.
3. In trials, we've found that drug X is associated with improved outcomes in m% of the people. Different people have different reactions to the drugs; different cancers have different reactions as well.
4. Just as some people don't tolerate certain antibiotics, some people won't do well with certain cancer medicines. People have slight differences in biochemistry and cell biology that affect how well the drug will perform. Unfortunately, given the current state of knowledge and our current ability to test, we cannot determine in advance whether you will respond well or poorly to this drug.

Once given the statistics for cases similar to the patient's situation, I would presume the physician would work with the patient to determine whether that drug is a reasonable treatment for that case.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Juidith -

"You do get, don’t you, that some chemotherapy drugs are about 8 per cent effective, and they are still used."

Chemo drugs have passed clinical trials. At least they work on some patients undergoing some treatments. Reiki has never passed a clinical proving that it works. Ever.

And you've been posting here for how long and you still don't understand that anecdotes =/= data? There are things I'll purchase based on word of mouth, but medical care does not fall into that category.

" We call it magic and occultism now because we don’t understand the phenomenon."

No, we don't. call it magic. If it can't be studied, measured or proven, and if it's being offered as a healthcare option by a self-styled healer , we call it fraud.

@Judith - this thread has nothing to do with your "energy healing" please stop posting off-topic.

Just how long do you think it would have taken for you to burned as a witch if you turned up in the middle ages with some of today’s technology?

Oh, and... please do expand on this theme, Judith. Because, you know, persecution of "witches" didn't really catch on until Protestantism came along.

@Lawrence: It does have to do with the arrogance of ignorance though.

I loved how Judith's completely bounced away from the line of questioning Bronze Dog and I brought up.

Judith, why do you keep presenting anecdotal evidence when you yourself admitted, in regards to Burzynski, that people shouldn't be "reliant on other people’s anecdotal evidence.”

What makes your anecdotes any different?

the knee was fixed and the person didn’t need a cane or crutches or an operation or whatever.

Judith, You are explicating telling patients that your treatments are resolving their same symptoms in other people. You are absolutely and directly leading people to believe that your treatments, in and of themselves, could suffice in treating them.

It is manipulation to make these claims about placebo-based treatments. If your treatments, in and of themselves, resolve the illness in other people, then it directly implies that your treatments could/would resolve the same symptoms in them. It is indeed "dissuading" and delaying patients from seeking appropriate care while they are trying and BUYING your placebo-based treatments.

If you want to market placebo-based medicine, you should provide a full disclosure and obtain patient consent to their being treated with placebos instead of science/evidence-based methods.

Judith,
You appear to be suffering from a common misconception.

Another question: placebo. How does it work?

It doesn't work. Placebos have no objective effect on illnesses. People say they feel better, but there is no objective change. If you tell someone a pill will make them feel happy they are likely to feel happy when they take it. If you tell them it will improve their asthma, make a tumor shrink, or cure an infection, it has no measurable effect whatsoever, even when they believe it has had one. For example, in this study only albuterol improved lung function, but the patients thought the placebos worked just as well.

A good chunk of healing that goes on as a result of medical interventions is placebo, whether the intervention is a pill or an operation (as the sham knee operations and angina operations proved).

You should track down those studies of sham, knee and angina operations like I did. They compared these sham interventions to real surgery and to the patients' conditions before the intervention. They didn't have a meaningful control group with the same condition that didn't get any treatment. Sham surgery does not improve knees or hearts any more than no treatment does. It's another misconception that has passed into the realm of things that everyone knows that are not true.

I did write a lot more, but it's redundant, as placebos don't work, neither does faith healing and there is no "mystery of healing" (in the sense you mean anyway) to explore. I am quite confident that the variables you speak of will be found, at the bottom of a beaker.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Sham knee surgery:

The operations: Lavage, debridement, and sham surgery
All three groups were roughly the same in terms of subjective and objective findings;
• Pain improved subjectively in all three groups; and
• Function did not improve in any group.

I repeat, "Function did not improve in any group".
QED

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

I don't feel threatened by what is currently un-explained by science: I enjoy visual art and literature which aren't subject to SB rules- and mystery and vastnesses - like the infinite expansion of space- are intriguing 'as is'.

Let's imagine that reiki really worked- how would that be a threat? It would just be another arrow in SBM's quiver of treatments- not a big deal at all. So perhaps as an auxilliary treatment, a person would get reiki to help improve his or her chances.

However, as Science Mom rightly notes, the critics of SBM usually don't understand enough about science to get that:
new concepts become integrated into theoretical considerations that engender new treatments in the SB arsenal AS A MATTER OF COURSE. When I hear a woo-centrist speak critically and derisively about what medicine did 100 years ago, I can't help but laugh: it's as though they believe that things stand still. The whole nature of science is to gather together new threads that will be woven into the fabric of knowledge.

Some of those I survey talk about the "harm" that pharmaceutical treatments for cancer, SMI or hiv/aids do: it makes me wonder if they know what those conditions would be like if left UNTREATED?
They propose treatments, e.g. nutrition for SMI, that reveal that they have no idea about the physiological underpinnings of these conditions. However, when someone attempts enlightening them, they merely scoff and say that the research in that area is "flawed."

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

it’s as though they believe that things stand still

This is generally advertised as a feature rather than a bug. Judith has expressed enthusiasm for Sheldrake, whose nattering about crystals is a step down from the incompetent metaphysics of "energy healing" to rank animism.

@Krebiozen
Function improves with my people.

@S
I am going to start to call you names. None of those people are delaying treatment. They went to the doctor. They were on a waiting list for surgery. They were looking for something in the meantime to improve their functioning and their pain. I am sorry, but you do suffer from serious tunnel vision that interferes with your reading comprehension skills.

Function improves with my people.

You are not competent to evaluate joint function, and pretending to do so for money would be a slam-dunk case of the unlicensed practice of medicine.

Precisely. We call it magic and occultism now because we don’t understand the phenomenon. Just how long do you think it would have taken for you to burned as a witch if you turned up in the middle ages with some of today’s technology?

Oh ho, you persist in your arrogance to think that someday you will be vindicated when all of us naysayers eat crow? We call your crap occultism because that is precisely what it is. You rely upon anecdotes because that is your bread and butter; you prey upon the weak-minded and that's despicable. You are the ones that shrink away from the force that is science. It would be so easy to put your voodoo to the test but none of you do.

Now why haven't you answered my question about the antibiotics along with others' questions of proof of efficacy?

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

I am going to start to call you names.

Then quit acting like an eight-year-old and get down to it. Who the f*ck thinks that twice threatening name calling is some sort of dire warning? Are you going to bring out the comfy chair, too?

Judith:

I am going to start to call you names. None of those people are delaying treatment. They went to the doctor. They were on a waiting list for surgery. They were looking for something in the meantime to improve their functioning and their pain.

That's great. So, against all likelihood, you've managed not to make anyone needlessly delay care. Great. Now what's going to prevent that happening in the future, since you openly present your treatment as effective at improving function? Indeed, how will you even know?

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Function improves with my people.

Prove it.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Judith, how would you know that a particular chemotherapy drug is only 8% effective? How would you know that sham therapy of some kind is as good as real therapy?

Answer to both: you would know because scientists went to the trouble to do science: to record and compare outcomes, to set up tests to tease out real effects from noise, to collect enough information as to be able to rule out random chance.

You apparently accept the findings of science in these cases, or you wouldn't cite them, however inaccurately. You don't accept the findings of science in your own case. Okay, but don't expect us or any other reasonable person to believe you unless you come up with scientific evidence relevant to your own case.

You bring up patients with knee pain. Do a proper clinical trial of your treatment of these patients. Then tell us that your treatment is superior -- and prove it.

@Narad
Clearly you don't.

Judith,
Your game is disgusting and despicable. You're lying to patients, cheating them and their families, and committing medical FRAUD.

If you had one single ounce of moral integrity, you'd take the Randi challenge. Think of the good you could do with the million dollar winnings. You could stop wasting your time here trying to shill your business, and you'd be rich, famous, and inundated with willing patients to help!

I'd be first in line to congratulate you and apologize for my disbelief, and I'd be shouting from the rooftops about your miracle treatment! I'd bet most of us here would too.

What's to lose?

@Judith - what are you so afraid of? You claim that we are close-minded, yet you won't put your "abilities" to the test.....

Clearly you don’t.

Shiver me timbers! Ohdearohdearohdear, how will I live with the humiliation of this savage retort?

"Meaning that you are not able to feel the energy because your ego interferes."

The only ego interfering here is yours Judith. You claim to manipulate the fabric of the universe to effect healing of an increasingly smaller number of things. Initially cancer and mass infection gets whittled down to simple relaxation under laboured scrutiny. Big whoop. And your website claims much more, obi-wannabe.

Don't forget I burned a hole in my buddy's shirt (Mrandmississauga to Markham) when healing his shoulder after taking your course.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Judith,
You said, "If you listen to Pamela Miles.... it [reiki] claims to offer very little, mostly “balancing” and “relaxation."

So what? YOUR BLOG itself is an indictment of your personal commitment to health FRAUD.

I'm off now to look into the Canadian health fraud reporting venues. I'd love to hear about your "business" being shut down.

as for the JREF Million, most of the applicants are all for it as they are worked with to establish a mutually agreeable protocol - just like the pros Emily Rosa showed were guessing, much like the financial market talking heads but I'm digressing - to announce their snowflakiness of Universal Uniqueness.

Then the results come in of ordinary Joeability.

Soon followed by the denouncements and recriminations Judith has regurgitated here.

IIRC there was a media presence requirement instituted a few years back, but since recently rescinded?

By al kimeea (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Narad:

One of the most mind-shatteringly incomprehensibe features of woo-topia is the simultaneous over-valuing of both ancient traditions and paradigm-shifting modernity so it's par for the course.

I meant that they disparage SBM based on options that were available a century ago and neglect the updates. However, they DO speak in hushed tones about the Wisdom of the Past (woo) AND of being "ahead of the curve"**( while SB advances are deemed "soul-less') soon to overtake SBM whilst riding the tsunami of futurity. The once and future woo?

-btw- I think that Judith just doesn't get you- as well as your point.

** I hate that idiom

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

they do seem stuck in some futuristic past

By al kimeea (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

a friend has this idea of universal wisdom with Jeebus being a very broad metaphor revealed to all differently

By al kimeea (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@al kimeea: "IIRC there was a media presence requirement instituted a few years back, but since recently rescinded?"

There are several ways of qualifying, just one of which is to be featured in an off-line publication.

I’m off now to look into the Canadian health fraud reporting venues.

The Competition Bureau is a good first stop.

Well, Canada's Competition Bureau Health Fraud website seems to be a good place to start:

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h_01962.html (sorry, don't know how to link).

I'm sick of reading Judith's fraudulent blathering, so I'm officially on a mission to take action. I see that her "business" is in Toronto, but also in the US and Great Britain, so it looks like I'll be busy for a while.

As a cancer patient, there's no "business" more deserving of scorn and legal/financial repercussions than one advertising the following:

"Treating cancer with Energy Healing (including the Bengston Method and the Domancic Method)...A resource on the use of bioenergy healing to treat cancer, with commentary on working with the Bengston Bioenergy Healing Method, the Domancic Method, Matrix Energetics, Quantum Touch, and Reiki."

If anyone has other resources or links to report this kind of health fraud, I'd love to see them!

@Narad - got it! Thanks - that's one down. Hopefully some others will join me in taking action. I don't have high hopes that my complaints will even be noticed, but it sure beats sitting here reading her nonsense and becoming more enraged by the minute. Cancer fraud is such a personal affront to me.

-btw- I think that Judith just doesn’t get you- as well as your point.

Indeed. If this is combined with al kimeea's observation about whose ego is actually the stoppage in the psychological toilet, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that Judith is unable (viz., too egotistical) to have comtemplated or to presently contemplate the possibility that her own mystical "tradition" fancies might be immediately recognizable as being common as dirt to someone who has not been Initiated into the Wisdom.

@Judith

Then one could get into a discussion about how to make it better. Now the discussion is “does it or does it not exist”, which from my perspective is a giant waste of time

Yes, yes postmodernism. We've covered this crap already. A billion times.

If science would acknowledge its existence and put the same amount of effort into improving it as it now does into creating chemotherapy drugs that extend life, you can be pretty certain that in a few years energy healing will dependably cure cancer.

And yet no proponent, including yourself, can be assed doing the research. Science *does* improve treatments over time, you just continue to ignore anything that doesn't fit your worldview. (Wait, did I say that exact same thing to Marg?)

I really don’t give a fig about Emily Rosa or the not-so-amazing Randi. If you choose feel it, you will. If you just choose to blather on about it being bullshit, go right ahead and live happily with that.

I LITERALLY just stated that I believed qigong would work for me. And it didn't. How do you explain that? (Oh yeah, you don't read my comments do you? You just skip over them, like so many inconvenient facts)

So why people heal or don’t heal is mystery. Is anyone studying it? It would have to be a large scale multi-disciplinary effort., and I am not so sure how well all the scientists, sociologists, psychologists and philosophers needed would work together.

Funny how you never think *you* should be included as one of the parties who should do research. I suppose "healers" are somehow exempt from this?

So on to energy healing. I don’t know how much of it is placebo.

EXACTLY. You *don't know*, therefore you should be doing studies and trials and whatnot to remove this variable from the possibilities. (F*ck you are thick, we've covered this stuff already but it never sinks in)

They see me again, the pain goes away, yadi yadi yada, and the upshot is that by the time they see their doctor again, they don’t need the operation.

And naturally you have proof of this case? Nah, didn't think so.

The scientific community has their nose so stuck in beakers that they cannot see the mystery of healing.

Oh for - how many times does it have to be explained? If you can't tell whether it's placebo, hand waving, pain killers or surgery, then you have NO way of knowing that it was the hand waving that did the job. This is WHY you have noses in beakers, to remove all the variables until there is ONE explanation left.

If it were up to you, everyone would take every option available, no matter how many 'treatments' conflicted with one another, because hey, why bother studying which one worked?

What a maroon!

We call it magic and occultism now because we don’t understand the phenomenon. Just how long do you think it would have taken for you to burned as a witch if you turned up in the middle ages with some of today’s technology?

Your god of the gaps for medicine argument is quite funny. "Science doesn't know therefore magic" seems to be what you're advocating. Except you still have to prove reiki works first. If no phenomenom is detected, there's no need for discovering its mechanism.

Yet another tour of distractions away from the fact that MARG nor JUDITH, the contemptible purse-snatchers of science, HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ENERGY HEALING WORKS. Plus, Judith made threats of libel/harassment which are hollow, vague and disingenuous; an attempt to chill speech and scare critics.

This study explains a mystery we have come up against while treating people with terminal cancer. We have found that bioenergy treatments could significantly improve quality of life in these patients, and yet patients who were clearly receiving benefits from bioenergy treatments would then allow themselves to be talked into palliative chemotherapy by family members who had a magical belief that chemotherapy would cure them. They would stop bioenergy treatments in favour of chemotherapy and the cancer would then take its regular course. Only in retrospect and in comparison to the effects of chemo would these family members recognize the value of bioenergy treatments.

This nauseating entry presented to you from Judith's blog. Hey Judith, perhaps you would like to justify your use of the word "significant" as that has a specific connotation when comparing treatments. While you are at it, what measurements did you use for "clearly receiving benefits".

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Science Mom

Of course, blame the recipient; it relieves the “practitioner” of failing to provide an effective treatment. Try this on Judith; if one has a bacterial infection and is administered antibiotics but the patient does not think they will or even want them to work, how does this interfere with the efficacy of the antibiotics? If Reiki works, then the recipients mindset should not interfere. Why can’t Reiki overcome resistance?

Continuing on from this, how does the invisible energy fields become influenced by the human mind and its intentions? Do we all have a centre in the brain that has some sort of energy field control switch?

@thenewme

For the US, you might want to try the Better Business Bureau; and for the UK, since she's going on about treating cancer, why not look into the Cancer Act stuff?

Hopefully some others will join me in taking action.

I have previously refrained by virtue of not being Canadian. Under the Competition Act, you might care to examine sections 74.02 and 74.03. As noted a few days ago, section 27 of the Health Practices Act could also be in play, with the only meaningful defense being that there is not actually any electromagnetic radiation being delivered and that there is in fact no effect on any tissue below the dermis.

^ Sorry, section 27 of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

She is treating animals. The board that oversees the practice of veterinary medicine might be interested in an unlicensed 'practitioner'.

As far as fraudulent claims, deceptive advertising and medical fraud occurring specifically on the Internet, the Federal Trade Commission may be intrigued, or perhaps the IC3.

Freakin H3LL Judith, Thanks (maybe) to Narad, I just found your blog. Your little testimonial video is revolting. You are luring people with MS and misleading them as treating their tremors,... Unreal. How DARE YOU!!

Only in retrospect and in comparison to the effects of chemo would these family members recognize the value of bioenergy treatments.

It is understandable that family members losing a loved one would wish they could have done something more effective. It's just cruel to pretend that if only their loved one had only continued with "bioenergy treatments" they would still be alive.

By Krebiozen (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Judith is treating animals? Oh, that's just peachy.

Fraud perpetrated against humans over the age of consent is despicable but at least the human is agreeing to the fraud. This kind of thing done to a suffering animal makes me hope both she and the owners get bitten or clawed, hard and often, by her patients.

Seen this?

Ah, yeah, I remembered that Judith has plied a trade as a comma jockey. The "academic" part is a new one on me, and I say that as someone in the lousy racket of journals editing and a coauthor (well, that's what the contract said) on that big style thingamawajum back when it was still orange on both sides.

@Judith

from your blog:

The purpose of this blog ...
is primarily to provide a resource on the use of bioenergy healing in the treatment of cancer.

Unless your blog states that bioenergy has NO use in the treatment of cancer, you are a liar and a fraud.

Typewriter, Narad?

@Narad,
I'm not Canadian either, but I filed a complaint anyway! I didn't see anything on the form that said you had to be in Canada, and it simply says, "Please use this form to notify the Competition Bureau if you believe that a company or individual has contravened the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, the Textile Labelling Act, or the Precious Metals Marking Act."

This part (also from the Competition Bureau) is also interesting in light of this thread: "The Act prohibits false or misleading representations made to the public. Under the law, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. This publication focuses primarily on the application of the Act to commercial Web sites and marketing strategies using e-mail. In light of the foregoing, however, depending on the circumstances, communications within chat rooms, news groups or message boards on the Internet could run afoul of the Act.

@Narad, thanks for the specific sections of the Competition Act! Seems very applicable in this case. Would you agree?

"Section 74.02 of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the unauthorized use of tests and testimonials, or the distortion of authorized tests and testimonials. The provision also prohibits a person from permitting such representations to be made to the public. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

If a court determines that a person has engaged in conduct contrary to section 74.02, it may order the person not to engage in such conduct, to publish a corrective notice and/or to pay an administrative monetary penalty of up to $750,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by an individual and $10,000,000 in the case of a first time occurrence by a corporation. For subsequent orders, the penalties increase to a maximum of $1,000,000 in the case of an individual and $15,000,000 in the case of a corporation."

In the let's-try-some-self-branding department, one unsurprisingly finds that Judith is really impressed by near-death experience reportage, which I suppose makes it less worrying if she loses a few here and there.

"[The fraud] is therefore compelled to preserve 'objective' reality, and can only 'save his soul' by imagining himself being pulled out of shape somehow, or the memorories transferred from one box to another, as it were, within the machine. All he actually saves are vague images of moving, labelled blobs."

@ S

sorry for the late answer regarding your comment below:

@Alain, I read your blog. If your treating physician did indeed promise you a career in research at the hospital where he worked, then I would think he may be stepping outside of his ethical boundaries by getting too involved in the personal lives of his patients. If he is supposed to be treating and overseeing your care, and he has only seen you once in a years time then this also raises some questions. I am sorry you have been bullied and treated so poorly, and wish you a better new year.

I will post a new blog post answering your concern during the week (couldn't be while in Montreal).

Alain

@S

Seems very applicable in this case. Would you agree?

I think the testimonials angle is weak, although as I remarked on December 11, Judith's may not have been adequately sanitized from assertions of causality.

I made the mistake of looking at Judith's vile website and then walking down the hall where all the family pictures are hung. So many of my family suffered and died of cancer, and their faces look out at me as I walk by. Judith and Burzynski and their ilk are very lucky that I *don't* believe that they have a cure for cancer but haven't done the work to make it available because They. Just. Can't. Be. Bothered.

@Narad,
Even without assertions of causality in the testimonials, it seems to me that the entire premise of the blog, from the title down, is misleading.

"...Furthermore, the representation or testimonial made or published by the person must accord with the representation or testimonial the third party has previously made, published or approved. An example of this would be where a quote is taken out of context, such as where a reputable lab's report of a product test is published and it expresses favourable comments or results on certain points, but these comments or results are heavily qualified. If the representation presents the favourable comments or results without the important qualifications, the representation may be in contravention of this provision."

It seems to me that practically everything in Judith's blog is in direct contravention of multiple sections of the Competition Act!

74.02 "An example of this would be where a quote is taken out of context, such as where a reputable lab's report of a product test is published and it expresses favourable comments or results on certain points, but these comments or results are heavily qualified. If the representation presents the favourable comments or results without the important qualifications, the representation may be in contravention of this provision." Sounds exactly like Judith's attribution of patient improvement exclusively to reiki, despite having real medical treatment as well, or a self-limiting problem.

74.03(5) - The general impression throughout her blog is that her energy healing can effectively treat cancer. The literal meaning of so many of her presentations are direct claims that reiki is efficacious.

74.01(1)(b) - "Performance claims that raise a question under the Act fall into two broad categories: those that are inappropriate in relation to the actual test results and those that are based on poorly designed test methodologies." Judith's representations fail both those tests. Sorry for the big copy/paste, but it looks like the Competition Act requires evidence just as we've been asking Judith all along!
------------------From http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/00520.html ----------------------
1. Inappropriate Claims

If the performance claim is broad, the existence of adequate and proper test relevant to only one portion of the claim or under only one condition of use is insufficient. For example, where a national representation of energy savings relates to the tested performance of a heat pump, and it is shown that the test was conducted under the climatic conditions of Southern Ontario, the results should not be generalized to all areas of the country.

Results must not only be significant but must be meaningful. For example, a representation that an air conditioner is quieter than another brand, where the difference cannot be detected by the human ear, should not be used.

Consumer panel testing of product characteristics that are perceptible only to the senses can sometimes establish relative superiority, but cannot usually quantify the extent of the superiority. Consequently, such testing, if proper, could substantiate claims such as "feels softer" or "tastes better," but not a claim such as "three times more softness."
2. Test Methodology

The test should indicate that the result claimed is not a mere chance or one-time effect.

Non-repetition of test — it is axiomatic that the reliability of the data resulting from a test is conditional upon the achievement of similar results from a repetition of the test.

User-tests — When consumers are asked to use and evaluate a product, various "test effects" can influence their behaviour. For example, a user testing a gas-saving device may modify his or her driving habits to a degree sufficient to affect the observed results. Furthermore, since such tests are not conducted under "ideal controlled test conditions," other factors such as climate and location would also have an effect. Unless such weaknesses are controlled, user tests would not be adequate and proper. At minimum, control groups are necessary in such situations.

Unrepresentative samples may produce biased test results. If, for example, subjects selected for the test were already known users of the product (and therefore potentially biased in its favour), the use of such results, unless expressly qualified in the representation, would likely contravene this provision.

Most court actions under the former paragraph 52(1)(b) have related to representations made where no tests had been undertaken or where user tests (notably of gas-saving devices) have not been found adequate to substantiate the claims.

Example:

"20% to 40% better gas mileage," where there is no adequate and proper test upon which the statement is based."

Even without assertions of causality in the testimonials, it seems to me that the entire premise of the blog, from the title down, is misleading.

I'm not trying to discourage you in any way as far as submitting an enquiry to the Competition Board goes. There's no particular need to complicate things; the basic case is simply that to the extent that Judith makes a representation of performance, it has not met the standard of adequate and proper testing.

And the criminal penalties are live when targeting vulnerable populations, etc. The point of any such enterprise (and I never would have bothered had Judith not conjured bumptiousness about libel, so, FISKER KARMA!) is just to point in the correct general direction. Grabbing snapshots of all the associated Web sites doesn't hurt, either.

Hmmmm. Did someone find a can of Reiki-b-Gon™ and spray it liberally about RI HQ? How sad. I know Narad was so looking forward to a hard-ass Reiki name calling throwdown . . . Your tulku so stupid, when he saw "Under 17 Not Admitted" at the movie theater, he ran back to the monastery and brought 16 monks with him.

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Oh, a typo? I reckon that's the best you can do.

Narad,
Got it. Thanks! I'm just looking into a Chrome plugin called FishBarrel, a tool for reporting online quackery which also includes taking screen shots! I may have to reconsider using Chrome just for this app.

No, really, your Tulku so stupid, he looked at the frozen orange juice can for 2 hours because it said "concentrate."

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Come on kids, we gotta make 1000 with this thing. Work with me here . . .

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

This, really? Surely it's self-parody?

“Treating cancer with Energy Healing (including the Bengston Method and the Domancic Method)…A resource on the use of bioenergy healing to treat cancer, with commentary on working with the Bengston Bioenergy Healing Method, the Domancic Method, Matrix Energetics, Quantum Touch, and Reiki.”

Is it true that Judith charges money for this? Despicable.

@THS,
Sadly, it's not parody. It's the name/subtitle of her Reiki business blog. I don't know whether she charges money for it or just "accepts donations," but it's despicable in either case. I don't know how she can face herself in the mirror, really.

I had noticed previously that Judith seemed to be distancing herself from Bengston. She would say "Bengston says he can do this" when questioned about what Bengston can do. That seemed sort of honest to me. But if she claims to use his method herself, that's just more of her being disingenuous.

Come on kids, we gotta make 1000 with this thing. Work with me here . . .

I suppose there's probably a "Domancic and Chong" angle to be had.

Come on kids, we gotta make 1000 with this thing. Work with me here . . .

With 161 (at this post) to go and thenewme probably sending Judith off to hit her internetz droppings with a hefty scouring of OopsieCleen™, I'm not confident that we can hit that mark*.

*Unless of course the conversation drifts towards the nearly inevitable recipe swap.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

We didn't quite make it with the last Marg/Judith thread, did we? Because if we did, I have to knit Orac a pony.

Recipe swap?

Great idea. Perhaps in these times of widespread fuel poverty, Judith can teach us to cook using Bioenergy.

Great idea. Perhaps in these times of widespread fuel poverty, Judith can teach us to cook using Bioenergy.

Great Idea!
In the meantime until we can get that sorted out, I did find this
Reiki slaw recipe
that reduces back pain.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Don't count on me for recipes exchanges, I'm no cook since a few years.

Alain

Great idea. Perhaps in these times of widespread fuel poverty, Judith can teach us to cook using Bioenergy.

Why think small - we should go straight raising steam for electricity generation - Bengston's cloud busting exploits are equivalent to burning on the order of 100 tonnes of anthracite coal per cloud busted and he could do this repeatedly. This would go a long way to eliminating AGW if Judith would teach us how.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

In the meantime until we can get that sorted out, I did find this Reiki slaw recipe that reduces back pain.

The notion that cabbage is a sattvic food strikes me as sorely misguided. Naturally, the accursed sunchoke is a hanger-on in this sort of construction.

Don’t count on me for recipes exchanges, I’m no cook since a few years.

Don't sell yourself short; you've got it going on with beer-making and you've had Reiki sex for crying out loud.

@ Narad, I just don't know what to do with you sometimes.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

"Pranic Cabbage" could be a passable name for an opening act, although one is always wise to remain close to Occidental water barbarisms when putting the shakti in the coconut, if you get my drift.

Given sufficient time, any internet thread will eventually turn to an exchange of cabbage recipes.
This is Cole's Law.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

I did find this Reiki slaw recipe that reduces back pain.

I expected the directions to specify "mix all ingredients together without physically touching them".

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Reiki-B-Gon™, Spray Away and Say Adieu to Woo!
NEW Peppy Pine, Silky Salmon and Performance Claim Clematis scents now available in 3 oz. Pocket-MistRz™ and thrifty, solid PlugNzs for all day protection!

Another swell product from Glaxxon!

Warning: do not spray directly in the face of exotic, wise, and mysterious "eastern" people. May cause burns and stains, test on small patch for allergic reactions.

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Cole's Law. I wish you were my doctor.

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

I hear Glaxxon's E-Go-BoostRz™ lozenges are very popular in the Far East . . .

あなたは、E·ゴー·BoostRzとジョン·ウェインのような巨大な西洋の自我を持っているでしょう!

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Awwww, c'mon, ScienceMom! I didn't mean to kill the thread, but I can't say I'm sorry to see her go.

Maybe my new miraculous cancer-curing side dish recipe will mitigate the loss. It's carefully gleaned from altie nuggets (!) posted on the breast cancer forum I visit.

Marinate mushrooms in lemon juice, soy sauce, apple cider vinegar, cottage cheese, and plenty of enema-strength coffee. Then dredge in baking soda and serve with broccoli (DIM!) and shredded cannabis. Sprinkle generously with curcumin and black pepper, and garnish with lots of apricot seeds. Enjoy!

Don’t sell yourself short; you’ve got it going on with beer-making and you’ve had Reiki sex for crying out loud.

no comments for reiki-sex but for beer, I can share some recipes; actually, I'm gonna make some next tuesday.

Alain

Oreo please...

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Ginger snap this time....having laptop issues.

By Marc Stephens … (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

I did find this Reiki slaw recipe that reduces back pain.

There is a niche for brassica-based recipes that adhere to the neo-Platonic dietary principles of the Kabbalah. It remains to choose a name for the chef. I am not sure that "Kohl Rabbi" is a real title.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 16 Dec 2012 #permalink

Judith
As my profession is somewhat seasonal I’ve skipped over a bunch of comments while trying to catch up.

You posted back on Dec 13

I would say to him that it works for some people but not for others and that you never know whether it works for you until you try it. If he agreed I would wave at him for a few minutes and then ask him how he felt.

If he felt better, say he said that the pain was a 7 before and is now a 4, I would wave at him a while longer, until he said 0, or 1 or 2. Then I would say cheerio to him, and suggest that if he found that the treatment was useful, and he wanted to do more, he could contact me.

Have you kept track of the numbers to whom you said “cheerio”?
Have you counted your failures while you’ve compiled your successful anecdotes? Because if you haven’t, your anecdotes are meaningless.

One more thing, Judith: have you learned anything from interacting with the folks comment here? This is a serious question - really do want to know. Back in June and July, I thought you were worth the trouble to educate about how scientific method works. Now, it seems, you’ve dug in your heels, and I’m not sure. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

^folks commenting
^I really do want to know.

Chemmomo

Judith and her cohorts are not only quite ignorant of science, they see no need to practice it, just prattle on aboot it to lend authenticity to their snake oil.

Witness Judith's website. After the bold claims of curing cancer and de rigueure Quack Miranda, it dives right into the quantum pool and emerges - quelle surprise - as beyond mere mortal medicine. Two levels beyond in factfantasy.

Scientific method? Phhht, we're beyond that. Trust me.

Add a soupcon of science being just another opinion like best band, book or meal and a very large dollop of Narcisse, et voila - a snowflake.

Reiki isn't a humble search for knowledge that can heal, it's a hand waving cult for self perceived masters of the universe who've never learned how to take any kind of criticism, much less constructive, and for whom introspection is an alien word.

I'm likin the band names.

By al kimeea (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

if we're lucky, we'll be treated to a "I'm rubber, you're glue..." comment

Judith, at what scale do quantum events take place?

By al kimeea (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Given sufficient time, any internet thread will eventually turn to an exchange of cabbage recipes.
This is Cole’s Law.</blockquote<

Humor is good medicine. Reiki Rehab has come to RI.

^I should have used the preview and drank more coffee before commenting.

This is Cole’s Law.

I love this place.

By Science Mom (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Alain:

But of course you can cook- you're FRENCH!
well, at any rate, you've got a French name..
oh... so do I...cancel that theory out.
No wait, mine is Franglais therefore I can't cook.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

"Kohl Rabbi."

Just when I think the good doctor's puns can't get any worse....!

(I have coffee on my keyboard now, Doc. You owe me).

@ al kimeea:

While alties may be "ignorant about science", they are rather good at understanding human nature and how advertising persuasion works. Reading over woo-ful websites, you'll notice that even when it isn't about selling a product, it's about SELLING A PRODUCT,e.g.
both Natural News and PRN waste a lot of electrons** telling you about politics, the economy or other disasters and you might think that they're therefore NOT selling you a product other than perhaps a film or book,
BUT you would be WRONG because they are selling themselves or their persona as a wise, truth telling,educator who is watching out for you and telling you about the catastrophes lurking just around the corner so you can be PREPARED. And buy their supplements.

They are on YOUR side unlike the dastardly, greedy forces of the elite like SBM, the government and the media. They are good, down-to-earth folks JUST like you..
who just happen to live in mansions in park-like settings with lily ponds, personal zoos and monogrammed wrought iron gates.

( -btw- someone should collect photos chez Burzynski, Wakefield, Null, Mercola and Adams- they're all there on the net )

** although everything they do is a waste of electrons

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Denice on her name

No wait, mine is Franglais therefore I can’t cook.

You are lucky you don't have a Y chromosome or you would have been named "Denephew".

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Alain, You don't need to be able to cook well, you only need to believe you can. If you will it, it will be.

@ Militant Agnostic:

Believe it or not, I've heard that one before.

I always throught that if I were a woo, I should call myself *Dionysia* ( actual translation)
either that or *Laxmi*.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

MO'B's brother has a daughter. I don't actually know her name because MO'B always referred to her as Denice.

Took a break from RI for a while. It's looking like Judith hasn't learned any new tricks, unsurprisingly.

By Bronze Dog (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

"Cole's Law" - ah, my sides are aching from the laughter!

How come Judith hasn't come back? Man, maybe I scared her off...

<blockquote.So on to energy healing. I don’t know how much of it is placebo.

Don't you think it's important you do know this, before you begin insisting it can cure poison ivy, back injuries, cancer, etc., and lining up clients (paid or unpaid)?

Those would be the testimonials your lot calls lies.

We're not calling them lies--we're calling them testimonial, and noting that due to concerns re: personal bias, regression to the mean, etc. they represent something other than evidence.

I think I have had tushie reiki, and must admit it did make me feel much better. If I recall correctly the practicioner called it a lap dance...

I very very very much like Cole's Law, and will henceforth propagate the concept. ;-)

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

LW - some years ago when my brother's daughter was in elementary school, I went to pick her up. She explained to her friend riding with us that I called her Deniece and exactly why I did so.

I was so proud.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

My favorites so far,

Cole's Law
Feeling a bit itchy.
Reiki Sex

Thank you very much. So I suppose now I'll have to change my 'nym to the original "Walter Howard**" or "Howard Walter' or whatever the fr!ck my last name actually is.
Doesn't *he* sound like fun!

** or suchlike

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

If we want to hit 1000 comments, we should lure DJT over here. Just responding to its historical ignorance ought to be good for a few comments.

Function improves with my people.

What hard endpoints are you measuring to evalute function?

Cole’s Law
Feeling a bit itchy.
Reiki Sex

Yes and may I add to that:

I think I have had tushie reiki, and must admit it did make me feel much better. If I recall correctly the practicioner called it a lap dance…
And
Purse-snatchers of science

By Science Mom (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ LW:

We can get to 1000 all by OURSELVES.
e.g. I will ask readers if they think that energy healing ( * a la* reiki) is truly the worst woo or if that distinction is reserved for ANOTHER form of alt med? And why is that?

I think that attributing all illnesses/ conditions ( as well as their cures) to diet is the worst woo. Because it negates what SB physiology has taught us and can harm everyone who suffers from ANY illness or condition.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Denice Walter,

Any woo where you can accidentally poison yourself on your own supplements is pretty bad.

The same goes for any that require inducing diarrhea and, possibly, vomiting for multiple days. Which reminds me, I need to schedule my colonoscopy.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

It's so difficult to rank the "badness" of woo. Energy healing is nebulous, and comes in so many forms. Do we count faith healing? How about acupuncture, which involves inserting needles into the body but which ostensibly redirects energy? Even dietary regimes are said to redirect energy at times. It truly is a pervasive thing. But in general, I don't think it's the worst woo. It can cause people to delay treatment, it can cause people to discard things that they depend upon, it can drive people into poverty, but it doesn't usually kill them directly. And there is woo that does that.

I tend to think of John Brinkley, the "goat gland doctor" as the sin qua non of woo. He got this idea into his head that impotence and possibly many other ailments could be treated by implanting goat testicles (and sometimes goat ovaries, or at least what he claimed was tissue from those organs) into patients. He was not a trained surgeon, and only technically a doctor, but he operated on people anyway. I suppose in way it was energy woo; it was said to restore people's vitality. (Except, of course, for the ones who died of horrible infections; as you might guess, his infection control protocols sucked, even by the standards of the day. He was even known to perform surgery in kitchens.) Eventually he progressed into vitamin sales and dispensing medical "advice" over a talk radio program. His efforts to elude regulation drove considerable changes in the medical regulatory framework of the day -- and even contributed to the formation of the FCC, and, ultimately, an international treaty (after his war reached the point of creating "border blaster" radio stations in Mexico that were so powerful you could sometimes pick them up in Canada).

I guess, then, shady back-alley surgeons who are not qualified as such are my worst form of woo. Brinkley was decades ago; nowadays we seem to mostly hear about back-alley cosmetic surgeons, and the tragic results. Maybe that's not exactly woo, like the gal who was injecting caulk into her "patient's" backsides in hotel rooms, with predictably horrid results. But it's horrible, that's for sure.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Denice Walter:

I don't think Reiki is the worst woo. Since it doesn't actually do anything, the only harm it can cause is discouraging medical treatment and then blaming the victim when s/he suffers or dies from lack of treatment, and all woo does that.

I'm not sure what is the worst woo though. There are a number of very strong contenders.

Denice, I have to vote for Scientist Based Quackery (SBQ) as the World's Worst Woo. By that I mean Simoncini, Burzynski, Montanier, Duesberg and their ilk. These Formerly Science Based (FSB) woosters have the science-y cloak of Brave Maverick Doctor (BMD) in which to wrap themselves when their nonsense is challenged. I have seen them kill first-hand. They are, in my opinion, the World's Worst Woo.

By Pareidolius (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

I would nominate any "therapy" for autism (or any other condition) that involves either enemas or chemical castration.

I still can't think about bleach enemas without wanting to find a big stick and start hitting those responsible.

Keep going, people. I actually found a pattern for a Connemara pony in cashmere. Not that I'm going to use cashmere unless Lord Draconis coughs* up some of my Big Pharma money.

(*I was going to use the phrase ponies up but I'm leaving the bad puns to the Doktor).

@Shay: "I would nominate any “therapy” for autism (or any other condition) that involves either enemas or chemical castration."

Or chelation, or injecting unknown substances, supposedly stem cells, into the spine.

Worst woo? MMS for autism, in my opinion. Hard to get much worse than routinely forcing beach enemas on children who already suffer from sensory issues.

One of the reasons I think that dietary woo is the worst is because the whimsy-based material DOES at some point shade off into reality-based information on diet ( both for cause/ cure) which will certainly allow the woo-meisters to utilise that respectability to fool more reasonable people as they confabulate, expand and jump to unwarranted conclusions: it is difficult to know where to draw the dividing line so it makes the entire topic slipperier and squirmier thus prime bait for woo.

Obviously dietary woo engenders a set of intrinsically opportune categories like cancer woo, autism woo, SMI woo, anti-aging woo- ad nauseum AND nutrition encompasses supplement woo. They loves them those supplements.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Excuse the coarseness of my language,but.....

Ranking woo by "badness" is akin to ranking which animal turds are the worst to step in.
To continue the fecal nature of my comments, all woo is sh*t, and all its proponents are either foolish or dishonest or both.

@Judith

Just a quick question for you regarding the Randi Million Dollar Challenge. Rather than taking the word of that commenter you copied, or even taking the word of any of the commenters here, have you actually read the Challenge rules for yourself?

@ MarkL,

* Au contraire*, would you prefer to walk through mouse poo or elephant poo? You might not even notice the former but the latter might stop you in your tracks.
I have excellent rubber boots but even I might be taken aback by the really big game** woo-meisters, i.e. elephant or rhinosaurus poo.

** double entendre.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

RHINOCEROS

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Denice Walter - if we're going to discuss sauropods, may I suggest apatosaurus?

:)

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

I have to vote for Scientist Based Quackery (SBQ) as the World’s Worst Woo. By that I mean Simoncini, Burzynski, Montanier, Duesberg and their ilk.

Do you instead mean Luc Montagnier, the Lyme-Autism doctor?

would you prefer to walk through mouse poo or elephant poo

Hantavirus

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Mephistopheles O'Brien:

Shhh... we have to be careful tossing the saur- or -saurus around here because you-know-who might think we're referring to him.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

ranking which animal turds are the worst to step in.

Dairy farm. Cold winter morning, still dark, frost on the grass, cold creeping in through the gumboots.
You too would be seeking a fresh steaming cow-pat to step in.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Militant Agnostic:

What do you think the boots are for? Not just miasmal swamps.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Denice

What do you think the boots are for?

For stamping on woo of course!

@Denice Walter - seeing as you are you-know-who's darling and Dark Lady, I suspect you have little to fear. I, however, as a shill 4th class (with cluster) and minimal chance for advancement am far beneath His Lordship's notice. Considering my current share of Philthy Pharma Lucre™, I feel I'm in the title role of the song Me and Bobby McGee.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

These boots are made for walking and that's just what they'll do.
One of these days these boots are going to walk all over woo.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Worst woo thread, now? Denice, you never fail us! Me, anyway, since my overt interest in woo/quackery is recent and it helps to have these pithy contributions.
Be careful with those boots if you enter miasmal swamps. We have a problem with New Zealand Mud Snails in Western Oregon, for example. They are spread by contaminated boats, boots, etc. Watershed-savvy folks treat the boots with detergent solutions (1/2X 409 is good) after we tromp through a riparian or marsh/swamp site. You can take that as a metaphor if you wish.
So far as what kind of poo is least objectionable, bears that have eaten apples quickly pass an applesauce-like "offering". Not so bad if you have boots & not low-cut shoes.
Worst woo? There are categories, aren't there? I was shocked by bleach enemas inflicted on autistic children. That was a recent topic when I found RI. Pseudoscience/medicine-based quackery by credential (quacks) is its own pernicious brand. We could list those that are most currently irritating and a marg or judith will surely slither by to bring us more.
And is it against the rules to go to Quackwatch to bring inflate our own contributions?

Better be careful or judith'll get me. In that last sentence, strike "bring" so my bias can conform.

@DW

e.g. I will ask readers if they think that energy healing ( * a la* reiki) is truly the worst woo or if that distinction is reserved for ANOTHER form of alt med? And why is that?

I think the worst woo is something akin to what Burzyinski does. There are things that will seem completely out there to most people - ie faith healing - but there are other things which so closely resemble real science that it sucks more people in. Medical frauds such as Wakefield, and those who clearly divert themselves around the scientific method, are far more dangerous because they have a better veneer of believability to them.

@JGC

Hard to get much worse than routinely forcing beach enemas on children who already suffer from sensory issues.

Typos conjured up people taking their kids to the beach and making them enjoy the sand in their shorts. Either way, not a pleasant image.

@THS:

Quackwatch is an inspiration to us all.

@ flip:

AJW is such a master fraud that he gets called a truth-teller by frauds for calling truth-tellers frauds.
Believe me that sentence works!

Excusez-moi, now I have to venture out into the chill, dark, rainy night to drive someone somewhere. Lucky me!

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Yes, AJW certainly has some "cobols" on him ;)

MESSAGE BEGINS-------------------------------

Minion 4th Class O'Brien,

Are we feeling a bit . . . left out? You could certainly be our darling if you made a Veau avec des grillons sur le riz with as much flair as Cadre Leader Walter. What diversions and talents (aside from your considerable skill in rounding up and disposing of the odd peddler of magic beans) have you been hiding from us? We Glaxxon do so love a story well told, especially with hand puppets and small explosive devices. We want to keep our Shills and Minions, whatever their class, happy and ready to carry out our orders du jour.

So in that spirit I hereby promote you to Shill, Class II, with clusters and, of course, the Ceremonial, Great Echidna of Office. Of course, the Great Echidna is a substitution for the Schleha'ich Gleev'cich Mook (Great Mook of Office), whose mere presence would most likely cause you to soil your britches. Be glad we have assigned a less . . . fearsome creature as your constant companion.

Instructions on caring for the Ceremonial Echidna of Office are to be found in the case on the side of it's presentation palanquin, or just ask Cadre Leader Walter who has grown quite fond of hers if I recall. As Cadre Leader she, of course, accompanied by the far more fearsome Ceremonial Tall Cat of Office.

In any case she will fill you in on the traditional Wall of Teeth induction ceremony and you new pay grade. Hopefully this will help pacify this "Bobby McGee" character who plagues you so.

We're off to inspect the Rim Colonies and attend Xenu and Todd's anniversary party with the usual suspects. Prince Charles will studiously avoid Camilla and drone on about magic water while Serena de Rothschild will no doubt make a fuss over the firmness of the mattresses again. That woman never stops complaining except to talk about horses. The things I endure . . .

Good thinking using that Reiki-B-Gon spray. Worked like a charm, didn't it? I told you.

Congratulations, etc., etc.
Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihL

Forward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, Avenger of the Egg Mother

IFY229 In Transit
000111010110111010111011111111101110

By Glaxxon PharmaCOM (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

MESSAGE BEGINS------------------

OMG! I told that big dummy not to try to use HTML. Total Bold Fail! LOL!:)

He means well. Well, if you all need anything, you have my transpoder code . . . . see ya o.O

Cindy Flinders HU7trX8
Personal Assistant to His Lordship, Combat Cadre Leader First Class, Gravatic Artillery Specialist Level 7, Dance Dance Revolution Extreme Oni Challence Champion

Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
0001011111101010111010101000101

---------------------------------MESSAGE ENDS

By Glaxxon PharmaCOM (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Alain:

But of course you can cook- you’re FRENCH!
well, at any rate, you’ve got a French name..
oh… so do I…cancel that theory out.
No wait, mine is Franglais therefore I can’t cook.

Sure, I made spaghetti tonight (with mom's sauce) but last year, I have been schooled by a 13 years old girl to help make super for 3 peoples (including myself) so perhaps I'll need a girlfriend to help me regain my skills in cuisine :)

@Alain, You don’t need to be able to cook well, you only need to believe you can. If you will it, it will be.

Thanks. I lost my skills due to a very severe depression but I seem to be regaining them one by one but it's a long process.

If we want to hit 1000 comments, we should lure DJT over here. Just responding to its historical ignorance ought to be good for a few comments.

please don't, we can hit it by ourselves.

In the meantime, to forget that I could have made 4 comments with these quotes, have some music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJJsoquu70o

Alain

@Alain: "please don’t, we can hit it by ourselves."

I won't. After getting a good look at DJT's attempts at reasoning, I just pity him/her and will not mock him/her any further.

To make a more substantial post:

@ S,

With my ex-doctor (who hired me), there's been a lot of thing we could have done differently with hindsight but at the time, I was in the difficult position of trying to save my life and the doctor held the keys to that because I couldn't do it by myself (move to Montreal) so the first meeting which lasted about 20 minutes was with my doctor as well as the doctoral student taking notes for the doctor (and the doctoral student wasn't in a clinical position nor she had any clinical training); I set out to say the cause of my troubles but was interrupted by both the doctor and the doctoral student because they weren't ready for what I wanted to say and in the end, they offered to help me regarding my financial matters at the time but keep in mind, I was already suffering from PTSD & depression at the time and they did nothing to alleviate that which lead to despair.

The second meeting lasted 30 minutes and it was during March 2008 (the first one being in the last few days of October 2007) where the doctor promised me a career in research. I don't recall what we discuss but it's certainly not my issues (depression & PTSD). This time, I was alone with the doctor and I was probably in a fine mood (not too good but not too bad) but school's work took a dive as I couldn't focus at all on my course. I don't know how I passed school but I passed at 50% my course and I think I was helped. All I did learn about anatomy was my surgery skills with the scalpel in the anatomy lab (which would have landed me an A if it was in the marking criteria).

Last meeting (while I was working for the doctor, this was in august 2008) was a short meeting at the hospital were I was speaking about my stress issues and was offered medication (he did not tell me which medication and neither the diagnostic) for my cause; I declined, not knowing the medication or the DX but I didn't think to ask (in restrospect, the DX was bipolar disorder, maybe with psychotic element because he didn't believe I was harassed, and the medication was Epival).

Only later during November 2008 that the doctor did move me to his clinic with regular staff (social worker, psychologist, nurses, etc...) but at the time, I was laid off from work because I have caused a huge ruckus (is that a word) in the lab regarding the situation with the doctoral student I was working for and her boyfriend who didn't like me.

Alain

@flip: your comment regarding medical fraud woo (and/or quackery) is well taken. These shady medical clinics target people who are desperately ill and bilk them shamelessly. Alt woo and whacky quantum stuff, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc. are despicable enough. They are always ripoffs, but, at least, many of the marks are the "worried well". The faux medical cancer "clinics" target the frantic families of very sick to terminally ill families. Maybe we can agree to determine the worst woo on the basis of current astrological circumstances or sign or house or phase or whatever the hell they call it, such that each woo and every quackery gets to bask in infamy.

When Dr. B is investigated by the medical board, who pays for his legal expenses? Does he pay, or does he manipulate his other patients into paying for his defense, in addition their own medical expenses?

The worst of the medical fraudsters are those who have their other patients pay for their legal defense expenses.

Montagnier it is. Poor Luc seems to have fallen from his heights as one of the first to isolate HIV into the quantum woo singularity trying to prove homeopathy broadcasts radio frequencies. I wasn't aware of his Lyme quackery. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked. If only there were a cure for Nobel Disease . . .

By Glaxxon PharmaCOM (not verified) on 17 Dec 2012 #permalink

Your most generous and fearsome lordship,

I am overwhelmed by your kind words and this totally unexpected promotion. We are building a force of extraordinary magnitude. We forge our tradition in the spirit of our ancestors. You have my gratitude.

As a side note, the Great Echidna of Office arrived this morning and once unshackled from its palanquin, has already begun establishing its dominance over the other life forms in the O'Brien hovel, as well as decimating the closer insect life forms.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

I wasn’t aware of his Lyme quackery. I’m shocked I tell you, shocked. If only there were a cure for Nobel Disease . . .

Interviews with Prof. Montagnier by Lilou of Juicy Living Tours is posted on YouTube. He says multiple sclerosis can be cured by using antibiotics at the onset the the disease. MS is due to a dysfunctioning immune system, primarily resulting from bacteria in the gut, he claims.

En Francais: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LRQ-NhEkLXU

En Englais: http://www.youtube.com/embed/ubSnxCr7kz8

trying to prove homeopathy broadcasts radio frequencies.

IIRC, he claims that it is the bacteria that emit the radio frequencies, and thus can be treated and eradicated through the use of countering frequencies, such as PEMF and RIFE.

^ are posted on YouTube.

MS is due to ...primarily resulting from bacteria in the gut

What is it with quacks and their obsessing over guts? *Everything* starts with the gut, it seems.

@Shay

What is it with quacks and their obsessing over guts? *Everything* starts with the gut, it seems.

I was thinking the same thing.

What is with the obsession with guts? Well, they're mostly thinking with their guts, and they trust their gut feelings more than anything else, so perhaps it's appropriate.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Shay, Flip - a sublimated purity fetish? Their obsession with internal "cleansing" suggests that to me.

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

I think the obsession with the gut is a recycling of nineteenth century ideas about auto-intoxication. Add to that recent* discoveries about the the importance of gut bacteria to add an "ahead of the curve" sciency veneer and the marks are suitably impressed.

*for a definition of recent that includes the last 50 years.

By Militant Agnostic (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

On the contrary, some on them are obsessed with other parts of the anatomy, but I don't necessarily think that would be an acceptable discussion for RI.

I think that the obsession with the other body parts may stem from Freud and other like-minded psychiatrists, doused with a disgusting amount of personal fetishes being imposed and played out on their patients.

@S - I was using a very broad definition of "gut", which includes the distasteful practices you're talking about. I didn't post on the other thread where someone asked people to name the worst kind of woo but my one of my personal woo bete noires is forcing large amounts of (often toxic) fluids in where they don't belong. I find it baffling that the same people who dismiss the need for medical treatment for serious illnesses also insist that the body is incapable of doing simple things like digesting and eliminating food without external intervention.

By Edith Prickly (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Alain:

The more I learn about this situation, the worse it sounds.

What's most important NOW, is
having a safe place to live
having enough money to eat et al,
being able to see a medical doctor, if need be,
having someone to talk to about your day-to-day life
( hopefully, a professional, if not, a trusted relative or friend)

then, having something to 'work on'- school, work, hobbies.

Because you've had collisions with 'difficult people', you need to get your confidence back- the whole world isn't like that- there are decent people and you probably already know some. You have many friends here.

Counselling on a regular basis is like an education wherein you learn skills about dealing with awful people- and EVERYONE has experienced this, believe me- sometimes it's learning how to AVOID them or put out feelers when you first meet someone new in order to evaluate whether they are a risk. There is no failsafe method but you can 'increase your odds.'

It's also important to realise that you've ALREADY come quite far and have already made progress. All of our paths have obstacles strewn across them which slow things down: everyone has to clean them up from time to time.

Just " keep on keeping on" as Mr Dylan wrote.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Edith

@Shay, Flip – a sublimated purity fetish? Their obsession with internal “cleansing” suggests that to me.

Maybe it's a replacement for all the puritanical religious stuff, or at least, feeds into that. Constantly being told that sin is bad and one must be good would certainly link in well with being good on both the inside and outside.

Add in a "why me?" feeling every time something bad happens and a reinforcement from health 'providers', and you'd have a quick psychological guilt trip. Even moreso for women, given the amount of beauty/health/perfection stuff that goes on in mainstream media.

(Hmmm, I must have psychic abilities, I seem to be channeling DW)

@flip

Fashion magazines used to be* big on "cleansing" weekends. Get rid of the roommate/boyfriend/husband and spend two days drinking green tea and meditating. I think spas still offer this as a female-bonding/pre-bridal package.

(*maybe they still are. I stopped reading them about 20 years ago).

@ flip:

I find that gilding the lily is entirely worthwhile.

@ Mephistopheles O'Brien:

Welcome to the club.
Although I suspect that our ancestors might have had the occasional run-in, it's nice to be fighting on the same side - afterall, our ancestors had so much in common being war-like, white as sheets and fond of despiacble, horrible foods- as many of our relations STILL are- bless the poor creatures.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

@ Shay:

Although I try to look as perfect as reality allows, I think that cleaniness should be restricted to the exterior surfaces of the body.

But if people LIKE the other procedures, who am I? Seriously, I think that it has little to do with puritanism but is quite the reverse.. if you catch my drift.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

@Shay

Our local paper has a weekend health section. 90% of it would be ads for "wellness" stuff (natural, supplements, herbs, workouts, you name it), with 5% editorial on same, and the rest is relaxation, spas, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the weekly women's magazines were exactly the same - I don't read them myself, and one of the reasons why is because they spend so much time focusing on positive thinking, beauty and being perfect.

MESSAGE BEGINS----------------------

Shill O'Brien, Class II, etc.

I was reminded by Astra to tell you to keep the Ceremonial Echidna of Office away from wheat, they're very gluten intolerant, but then again, who isn't these days? Don't let it eat all the bugs, keep some for yourself, after all, you deserve the extra protein Mr. Class II Shill!

Back to following my better half around as she intimidates the Suzerain of LV334. Then another inedible banquet and off to the LV337b. Oh, well, evil never sleeps . . . or something like that.

Lord Draconis Zeneca, VH7ihL

Foreword Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Grand Vitara of Eminiar VII, Carrier of the Handbag

LV334 Inspection Tour
000110110101111011010101011100000000101011

---------------------------MESSAGE ENDS

By Glaxxon PharmaCOM (not verified) on 18 Dec 2012 #permalink

Denice Walter re December 8, 2012 ... Why do none of these arcane, magical essences of nature I keep hearing about- year in, year out – ever seem to pan out?...has it ever been transformed into a SBM cancer treatment? ... other mushrooms- turkey tail, meitake, shitake), cited by commenter PRN here- where has that gone?
Based on small but pronounced improvements in CBC, the mushroom extracts have gone well, thank you. One of them, PSK, I pay too much, [grumble, grumble] but its effect is of measurable benefit and allows more 5FU-LV type chemo to be used.

Other beta glucans, developed by a group from MIT called Alpha Beta Corp in the 1990s, has interesting effects on CBC component measures that are described in papers to reflect on the success of 5FU based therapies. Characteristically, some of the CBC values rise like a projectile when 5FU chemo is most effective. Then the blood values peak, and when blood values typically fall in ca 7-11 months, the 5FU show is over.

Most interesting, is that this beta glucan not only elevated the previous peak, finally to levels that some papers suggest are a high survival area, but has extended the peak for more than a year past typical 5FU effectiveness times. I do buy other biomodulators, so I am not claiming these "magic powders" are solely responsible for success. However, their measured effects within CBC correlate with dose or absence.

Separately, the successor to Alpha Beta seems to still be on the EBM trial trail with its beta glucans. The Chinese may be also doing EBM trials overseas with their mushroom extracts.

PS. I thought I used "prn" here first, rather than that other "PRN" but may have missed its prior use. Thanks for thinking of me.