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

What might be interesting is if there were a database of existing studies, with notes and critiques? Rather than post studies here (discussion threads are awkward for that), maybe a list of pointers & URLs of known studies, and some way we could look at them and offer commentary? I'm not sure how that would work.

I am close to one clinical study that's not published yet that had "really good" results. The study was very difficult to design and fund, but it was finally carried out. Then it turns out that writing, reviewing, (then rewriting and re-reviewing) and publication are even harder! If it ever does hit a journal or the web I'll post a link.
Bogged down in analysis? That's what holistic healing is all about, friend. If one cannot properly analyze that what we are doing is healing, then how can we focus on positive aspects of energetic work? You mentioned not wanting to cite specific examples of a test without scrutinizing the results. Then you go on asking if there is a truly fair way of testing? I don't think you can have both. There are people who will question the results of any test (no matter how fair).

Yes, there are definite ways to test energetic work. Besides the usual: heart rate, blood pressure, ORAC exchange rate, breathing patterns, hormone levels, nerve ending tests, etc. there are also long term tests: Climate influences, stress tests, brain wave activity, longevity, etc. These all can be tested and documented. But in my honest opinion, test results only show numbers. And people aren't just made of numbers-- we are a set of infinite changing parameters, which cannot all be marked (or checked off) in a constantly changing world.

I do believe in the power of intent (or the power of attraction) just like the power of gravity. So to answer your question(s):
No, I do not think there will ever be conclusive or irrefutable test for energywork. However, I do believe that our energywork has intangible results that supercede even the greatest of intents.

Gerry Bunnell said:
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!
Well Said Daniel. This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for putting it into words that I was unable to do.

Peace

Daniel Myers said:
Bogged down in analysis? That's what holistic healing is all about, friend. If one cannot properly analyze that what we are doing is healing, then how can we focus on positive aspects of energetic work? You mentioned not wanting to cite specific examples of a test without scrutinizing the results. Then you go on asking if there is a truly fair way of testing? I don't think you can have both. There are people who will question the results of any test (no matter how fair).

Yes, there are definite ways to test energetic work. Besides the usual: heart rate, blood pressure, ORAC exchange rate, breathing patterns, hormone levels, nerve ending tests, etc. there are also long term tests: Climate influences, stress tests, brain wave activity, longevity, etc. These all can be tested and documented. But in my honest opinion, test results only show numbers. And people aren't just made of numbers-- we are a set of infinite changing parameters, which cannot all be marked (or checked off) in a constantly changing world.

I do believe in the power of intent (or the power of attraction) just like the power of gravity. So to answer your question(s):
No, I do not think there will ever be conclusive or irrefutable test for energywork. However, I do believe that our energywork has intangible results that supercede even the greatest of intents.

Gerry Bunnell said:
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!
David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. has done some interesting research with reference to attractor patterns. Although his work specifically pertains to kinesiolgy (and therefore intimately related to what we do) you all might find it worth a look. I recommend reading Power vs. Force, The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior (Hay House, 2002).

In the field of human energy fields is Dr. Valerie Hunt, who electronically discovered & differentiated vibration patterns ("human field chaos") during pain, disease & illness, and in emotional & spiritual states; she was able to recognize & document the individualized field signatures and subtle energetic happenings between people and within groups. Her book Infinite Mind (Malibu Publishing, 1996) is based on 25 years of electronic field testing in conjunction with the UCLA Energy Fields Laboratory & Bioenergy Fields Foundation.

Hope these references help in the quest...interesting reading, in any case!
I'd like to 2nd Gerry re Daniels comments re scientific testing.
If want to look at the posts re measurement of energy tests and the attitude of the "scientists" involved take a trip over to the BOK group Body of Knowledge its over several pages, look at Chris and Berts postings starting around page 23 on the comment wall. Read backwards because as with so many groups on here the comment wall is incorrectly being used for discussion. Its well worth a look.

Full report http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/279/13/1005 excerts below.

Therapeutic touch is grounded on the concept that people have an energy field that is readily detectable (and modifiable) by TT practitioners. However, this study found that 21 experienced practitioners, when blinded, were unable to tell which of their hands was in the experimenter's energy field. The mean correct score for the 28 sets of 10 tests was 4.4, which is close to what would be expected for random guessing.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, no other objective, quantitative study involving more than a few TT practitioners has been published, and no well-designed study demonstrates any health benefit from TT. These facts, together with our experimental findings, suggest that TT claims are groundless and that further use of TT by health professionals is unjustified.
Hi Gerry...I agree that intention is very powerful and that the intention of the people conducting the studies affects the study as well. I have had students that were skeptical of energy work and their classmates could sense that whenever work was being done on them. They were blocking or putting up barriers to receiving and their intention was not to accept it. As everything in the universe if energy, energy is being exchanged on a constant basis whenever we interact with others.
Sue

RSS

© 2022   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service