massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

It's an early Sunday and I've had only 1 cup of coffee. Perfect time to throw something out to the forum to bend some minds and get people to think. "Evil Wicked Grin"

A lot of studies that I have reviewed "please don't ask me to cite specific studies at this time" find the effectiveness and skills of energy therapy practitioners to be inconclusive at best. Results of such therapies have been explained by the scientific/medical community to be more placebo effect since effectiveness of the practitioners can not be established or quantified in any form of measure. The type of studies I am referring to are blind studies testing the practitioner's ability to sense energy fields and/or specific issues or conditions in a test subject.

I offer an explaination for the lack of success in these studies. What is being tested is energetic activity on very subtle levels. These subtle energies are highly reactive to intent. So I wonder what the intent is of those who conduct these tests. Is it their intent to prove, or disprove the notion that energy terapies are affective? What is the intent of the participant in the study? Do they believe in energy therapies, or are they participating because they want to help disprove it? What if energy therapies are against their religion?

In my own experience, energy therapies are most successful when both the practitioner and recipient are open to whatever results from the session. When ego comes into play on either side, it limits and can totally disrupt the flow of energies.

Comments?

(I am double posting this string on the forum and also on the Energy Therapies group. Please forgive the cross posting, I am looking for perspectives from those who embrace energy work and also from those who may not)

Peace

Views: 125

Replies to This Discussion

I find that when you question "studies" you should cite specific examples so we can reference what you are talking about. Randomly asking questions about a random study has no meaning to me.

I could post something like you did, but with opposite questions and opposite proof of studies. However, without showing the actual studies, it would seem like I know nothing about energy tests. An intelligent perspective would show his readers exactly what he means, instead of assuming they do.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive, just constructive to the conversation. Have an energetic Sunday!
Good questions, Gerry.
My feeling on the subject is that there really is no real way to measure the effectiveness of energy therapies. I am a firm believer but I see that it is often a mix of the practioner and the client. Results differ from person to person. The belief and faith of the people involved make all the difference. Wether or not it is the energy, the power of the mind, or time for them to get well anyway, there is no absolute way to measure.
I do however firmly believe that our thoughts are powerful forces. I believe that a healing happens at some level with every attempt. The ancients knew what was there. We are now at a point of re-learning. There have been studies done on Budhest monks as they meditate. There are measurable changes that take place in their brains. Someday, maybe we will know for sure. For now, I deal on faith.
Peace to you!
Mary
Hi Daniel -

This is a good point! Perhaps we should turn up a specific study. Gerry kicked the thread off, so I think we should give her first shot at this.

What do you think Gerry?

If you'd rather not, or if you think you might not be able to locate a good one, let me know - I'd be happy to try.

-CM

Daniel Myers said:
I find that when you question "studies" you should cite specific examples so we can reference what you are talking about. Randomly asking questions about a random study has no meaning to me.

I could post something like you did, but with opposite questions and opposite proof of studies. However, without showing the actual studies, it would seem like I know nothing about energy tests. An intelligent perspective would show his readers exactly what he means, instead of assuming they do.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive, just constructive to the conversation. Have an energetic Sunday!
Hi Mary.

"My feeling on the subject is that there really is no real way to measure the effectiveness of energy therapies."

Why not? Shouldn't we be able to detect any such energy? Similarly, shouldn't we be able to conduct an experiment to see if the practice of an energy medicine technique produces change in the recipient?

"I am a firm believer but I see that it is often a mix of the practioner and the client. Results differ from person to person."

But results of every therapy - even aspirin - differ from person to person. That is no impediment to studying a therapy.

"The belief and faith of the people involved make all the difference. Wether or not it is the energy, the power of the mind, or time for them to get well anyway, there is no absolute way to measure."

But actually there is, and scientists have known how to do this for a very long time. First, the distinction between energy, and the power of the mind, is an important one. One of these is well-documented, while the other is entirely unproven. To determine if there is actually energy at work in energy therapies, it is necessary to experimentally separate the two. This is exactly what is done in virtually every medical trial performed in modern times. There is nothing to prevent us from studying energy medicine in the same way.

"I do however firmly believe that our thoughts are powerful forces. I believe that a healing happens at some level with every attempt. The ancients knew what was there. We are now at a point of re-learning. There have been studies done on Budhest monks as they meditate. There are measurable changes that take place in their brains."

Exactly! Surely, if we can measure that, we can measure what does, or does not, happen during energy medicine, no?

-CM
Hello again, Gerry ~ Have you ever checked out the studies that Lynne McTaggart is doing with the intention experiment? If not, I think it would interest you. Best, ~m
(e-news@livingthefield.com)
Hi Dan,

I purposely avoided citing any specific studies because I did not want this topic to get bogged down in analysing the specific merits of any particular study. My hopes are that we focus on the concept that I have placed on the table of subtle energies being responsive to intent. Given that concept, is it possible to truely design a fair and objective testing of energy therapies to support or refute their affectiveness?

Daniel Myers said:
I find that when you question "studies" you should cite specific examples so we can reference what you are talking about. Randomly asking questions about a random study has no meaning to me.

I could post something like you did, but with opposite questions and opposite proof of studies. However, without showing the actual studies, it would seem like I know nothing about energy tests. An intelligent perspective would show his readers exactly what he means, instead of assuming they do.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive, just constructive to the conversation. Have an energetic Sunday!
Blessings Mary,

" The Belief and Faith of the people involved make all the difference"
I agree, this allows recipients to be more open and accepting of the process. However, this one statement is also what sets up the placebo argument as being valid with our skeptic friends. I'm hoping to provide reasons as to why studies and tests have been mostly inconclusive so that objective research can be done.

Mary Marin said:
Good questions, Gerry.
My feeling on the subject is that there really is no real way to measure the effectiveness of energy therapies. I am a firm believer but I see that it is often a mix of the practioner and the client. Results differ from person to person. The belief and faith of the people involved make all the difference. Wether or not it is the energy, the power of the mind, or time for them to get well anyway, there is no absolute way to measure.
I do however firmly believe that our thoughts are powerful forces. I believe that a healing happens at some level with every attempt. The ancients knew what was there. We are now at a point of re-learning. There have been studies done on Budhest monks as they meditate. There are measurable changes that take place in their brains. Someday, maybe we will know for sure. For now, I deal on faith.
Peace to you!
Mary
Chris, you threw me a curve when you said "Gerry kicked the thread off, so I think we should give her first shot at this". I finally realized you may be referring to me. I'm kinda ugly for a woman, don't you think?

Please see my response to Dan. I'll be happy to dig up some actual studies if you feel it will add value to the discussion.

Peace

Christopher A. Moyer said:
Hi Daniel -

This is a good point! Perhaps we should turn up a specific study. Gerry kicked the thread off, so I think we should give her first shot at this.

What do you think Gerry?

If you'd rather not, or if you think you might not be able to locate a good one, let me know - I'd be happy to try.

-CM

Daniel Myers said:
I find that when you question "studies" you should cite specific examples so we can reference what you are talking about. Randomly asking questions about a random study has no meaning to me.

I could post something like you did, but with opposite questions and opposite proof of studies. However, without showing the actual studies, it would seem like I know nothing about energy tests. An intelligent perspective would show his readers exactly what he means, instead of assuming they do.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive, just constructive to the conversation. Have an energetic Sunday!
TY Marilyn. I am definately going to dig into that.

Marilyn St.John said:
Hello again, Gerry ~ Have you ever checked out the studies that Lynne McTaggart is doing with the intention experiment? If not, I think it would interest you. Best, ~m
(e-news@livingthefield.com)
I agree Jade, I feel ongoing case studies is the most practical method of assessing the affectiveness of energy therapies. Bravo for you holding your own on that study. Do you know if the testers marked it conclusive evidence or inconclusive?

Peace

Jade Edwards said:
Hello, Gerry
Great topic!

I believe that the neutrality of the proctor is critical for the test to be performed accurately. There also needs to be several tests performed, by a multitude of 'neutral' proctors,test subjects from several different locations and at different times of the year. Also...what 'kinds' of test subjects are being utilized...documented medically diagnosed patients or just John or Jane Doe off the street?

One other detail to ponder...is on several occasions, I have been 'tested' by skeptics who purposely try to trick me. One example is a 'friend' host of mine had his test subject say that their right mid thigh had been hurting for over ten (10) years and no doctor or 'cure' could help. Upon grounding and touching the subject...I had a REALLY difficult time seeing anything wrong with their leg! After about 30 minutes I started to notice the host individual chuckling and talking to observers around him that I was a FAKE! This upset me, but I decided to 'look' around in an area that caught my attention upon first touch. I moved toward the subjects chest and I immediately started having a hard time breathing! I looked further and felt that this person had something severely wrong with his lungs. At that point, I asked him what was wrong with his lungs? He was startled and looked over at the host who said, "There's nothing wrong with His lungs!" The subject then nodded his head and turned to look at me. He keep shaking his head while looking around at everyone. He said it was a hereditary condition which he was born with. Without his inhaler, he said he would suffocate. He stated that he took a dose of his medication just prior to volunteering and that he felt bad for accepting $20 from the host to make me look like an idiot...

Anyway, there I go rambling on again! :)
Ha - I just saw this. Uh, yeah, dumb mistake on my part. :)

Gerry Bunnell said:
Chris, you threw me a curve when you said "Gerry kicked the thread off, so I think we should give her first shot at this". I finally realized you may be referring to me. I'm kinda ugly for a woman, don't you think?

Please see my response to Dan. I'll be happy to dig up some actual studies if you feel it will add value to the discussion.

Peace

Christopher A. Moyer said:
Hi Daniel -

This is a good point! Perhaps we should turn up a specific study. Gerry kicked the thread off, so I think we should give her first shot at this.

What do you think Gerry?

If you'd rather not, or if you think you might not be able to locate a good one, let me know - I'd be happy to try.

-CM

Daniel Myers said:
I find that when you question "studies" you should cite specific examples so we can reference what you are talking about. Randomly asking questions about a random study has no meaning to me.

I could post something like you did, but with opposite questions and opposite proof of studies. However, without showing the actual studies, it would seem like I know nothing about energy tests. An intelligent perspective would show his readers exactly what he means, instead of assuming they do.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive, just constructive to the conversation. Have an energetic Sunday!
Earlier, I thought it would be interesting to post a specific study, to see what critiques people have. However, after developments in another related thread, I'm not so sure - it seemed in that case as if people just ignored salient points if ignoring them benefited their position. It took a lot of time and energy to make very little headway.

I'll do my best to communicate as clearly as possible if it happens...

-CM

Gerry Bunnell said:
Chris, you threw me a curve when you said "Gerry kicked the thread off, so I think we should give her first shot at this". I finally realized you may be referring to me. I'm kinda ugly for a woman, don't you think?

Please see my response to Dan. I'll be happy to dig up some actual studies if you feel it will add value to the discussion.

Peace

Christopher A. Moyer said:
Hi Daniel -

This is a good point! Perhaps we should turn up a specific study. Gerry kicked the thread off, so I think we should give her first shot at this.

What do you think Gerry?

If you'd rather not, or if you think you might not be able to locate a good one, let me know - I'd be happy to try.

-CM

Daniel Myers said:
I find that when you question "studies" you should cite specific examples so we can reference what you are talking about. Randomly asking questions about a random study has no meaning to me.

I could post something like you did, but with opposite questions and opposite proof of studies. However, without showing the actual studies, it would seem like I know nothing about energy tests. An intelligent perspective would show his readers exactly what he means, instead of assuming they do.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive, just constructive to the conversation. Have an energetic Sunday!

RSS

© 2022   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service