Reiki Healing

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
Post Reply
Nero
Clardic Fug
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:01 pm

Reiki Healing

Post by Nero » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:34 pm

On my local FB page I recently got into a bit of an argument with someone setting up a Reiki Healing service. I have to admit, that my gut feel is it's all bollocks, but it's not something I have any hard knowledge about. To try to better my stance I did a PubMed search, and the initial papers I found do seem to find beneficial aspects. So what's the take away, is there something about Reiki healing that is beneficial, or do the PubMed articles present something that isn't there?

Cheers

User avatar
murmur
Snowbonk
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:09 am
Location: West of the fields

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by murmur » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:49 pm

Reiki is essentially waving around of hands " energy healing", without any indication of what the "energy" might be and how it might be measured or anything like that. It's b.llsh.t, but "spiritual" b.llsh.t.

Edzard Ernst has discussed it at times, as had Orac and so too someone or other on Science-Based Medicine; it is dismissed pretty rapidly in Trick Or Treatment as having no evidence to support it.

It is biologically and medically implausible, without any evidence to support either clinical efficacy or its supposed basis, which is magic.
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk

Nero
Clardic Fug
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:01 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Nero » Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:57 pm

murmur wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:49 pm
Reiki is essentially waving around of hands " energy healing", without any indication of what the "energy" might be and how it might be measured or anything like that. It's b.llsh.t, but "spiritual" b.llsh.t.

Edzard Ernst has discussed it at times, as had Orac and so too someone or other on Science-Based Medicine; it is dismissed pretty rapidly in Trick Or Treatment as having no evidence to support it.

It is biologically and medically implausible, without any evidence to support either clinical efficacy or its supposed basis, which is magic.
Yep, that's pretty much what I know. But I guess my main consideration was around all the positive PubMed papers supporting Reiki Healing. It's pretty difficult to refute when supporters of the "art" can cite these.

mikeh
Fuzzable
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:48 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by mikeh » Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:02 pm

Can you chuck a paper or two in here for prying eyes to have a look at?

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by jimbob » Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:12 pm

I seem to recall a single-blinded trial, where the placebo was actors pretending to be Reiki healers, and because the actors tended to be better actors than the supposed-real Reiki healers, they did better.

No idea where I read about that though.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
murmur
Snowbonk
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:09 am
Location: West of the fields

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by murmur » Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:16 pm

mikeh wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:02 pm
Can you chuck a paper or two in here for prying eyes to have a look at?
Yeah, what Mike said.

Bung us a couple to savage: I'm waiting in for parcels and engineers over the next 2 days, so I need something to keep me occupied.
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk

Nero
Clardic Fug
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:01 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Nero » Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:26 pm

mikeh wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:02 pm
Can you chuck a paper or two in here for prying eyes to have a look at?
Ok, here are the first three that come up on a PubMed search, all seemingly supportive of Reiki Healing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25835541
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28874060
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29551623

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Little waster » Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:05 pm

Nero wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:26 pm
mikeh wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:02 pm
Can you chuck a paper or two in here for prying eyes to have a look at?
Ok, here are the first three that come up on a PubMed search, all seemingly supportive of Reiki Healing:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25835541
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28874060
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29551623
On phone so sorry I can't quote properly or read them thoroughly but at a glance, the 1st concludes no effect, the 2nd appears to have been retracted and the 3rd is by a Reiki healer literally and figuratively hand waving away all the negative reviews with a concluding couple sentences of unadulterated 100% woo.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

mikeh
Fuzzable
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:48 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by mikeh » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 pm

Which one is retracted? The meta-analysis one? I couldn't obviously see a retraction next to any of them.

This is the meta-analysis - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... via%3Dihub
It includes a grand total of four trials, with a lot of 'distant reiki' in there, which I think is reiki by Skype (or equivalent thereof). Which is of course an excellent start to proceedings.

Of the four trials included, this is one of them - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4214001520
Here's their findings, check out the p values they're quoting -
Statistically significant differences in pain intensity (p = .000), anxiety value (p = .000), and breathing rate (p = .000) measured over time were found between the two groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the time (p = .000) and number (p = .000) of analgesics needed after Reiki application and a rest without treatment.
Being able to produce a p value that even at three decimal places is still on zero would be extraordinary if true. Perhaps, maybe, that's not actually quite right.

The others (citations 23-26 in the meta-analysis paper) all look very wibbly with the way they're reporting their numbers, and I can't see, for example, that any of them have included reporting of their Consort statement. Consort aims to standardise how you write about clinical trials, with a list of items that create transparency over your methodology (e.g. how did you randomise those patients exactly?).

As one example, the one in this post with the magnificent p values, I can't easily see how they did the randomisation. From the text "Thus, groups were selected by age and number of births by using a random group assignment method and simple randomization technique. "
Which isn't good enough. See the Consort example (paragraph entitled 'randomisation') for how it should be done.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by jdc » Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:11 pm

That third link has this:
RESULTS:
The result obtained after the final Reiki application was evaluated in VAS pain score. When Reiki (n = 104) group was compared with control group (n = 108), standardized mean difference was observed to be -0.927 (95% CI: -1.867 to 0.0124). Reiki was observed to cause a statistically significant decrease in VAS score.

CONCLUSION:
Consequently, this meta-analysis revealed that Reiki was an effective approach in relieving the pain.
If your confidence interval's got zero in it, doesn't that mean you ain't shown that reiki works? That's like close but no cigar, no?

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Little waster » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:05 am

mikeh wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:38 pm
Which one is retracted? The meta-analysis one? I couldn't obviously see a retraction next to any of them.
Sorry meant the third one, I'm blaming my phone.

Perhaps retracted is to strong a word but the abstract has been amended to include a response:-
Misinterpretation of the results from meta-analysis about the effects of reiki on pain.

KEYWORDS: Confidence intervals; Data pooling; Meta-analysis; Research methodology
I don't recall seeing an original abstract edited to include a refuting comment before. I don't want to cast nasturtiums at the journal Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice but even they have went "woah that's a bit dodgy".

The actual comment is here (Note to Mods if you believe this breaches any fair usage guidelines, please edit it and I'll just post a summary):-
We read with interest the meta-analysis recently published in Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice about the effects of reiki on pain (1). We would like to highlight that based on the data published; the author has misinterpreted the results of the study. The main outcome measured in this study was the change in a VAS scale after the reiki treatment. When Reiki(n = 104) group was compared with control group (n = 108), standardized mean difference was observed to be −0.927 (95% CI: −1.867 to 0.0124) which in fact represents a non-statistically significant result ([the confidence limits include 0.0), contrary to that indicated by the author. Again, the forest plot showed in the figure 2 of the manuscript also represents a nonstatistically significant result. [Tb]he author repeatedly fails to correctly interpret the forest plot[/b] and indicate that Reiki was observed to cause a statistically significant decrease in VAS score, what is not right. In this case as the diamond touches the vertical line, the overall (combined) result is not statistically significant. It means that the overall outcome rate in the reiki group is much the same as in the control group (2). This is the case in the figure 2 of Doğan manuscript (1). Unfortunately, the results shown are the exact opposite of what was concluded by the author.
Which is basically what jdc said. And if even that chicken-flavoured nipple biscuit shilling tw.t can see what's wrong with your research then you really are f.cked.

That's pretty damning and effectively unanswerable and given, it's a meta-review , if you strip out the statistical analysis there is ... NOTHING ELSE ... you had one job.


Here's the quote from the 2nd (not third paper) by the Reiki healer
From the information currently available, Reiki is a safe and gentle "complementary" therapy that activates the parasympathetic nervous system to heal body and mind. It has potential for broader use in management of chronic health conditions, and possibly in postoperative recovery. Research is needed to optimize the delivery of Reiki.


Which sets off a number of alarm bells. Even if the meta-analysis did show some sort of effect you can't just leap from "it appears to have some sort of effect above random chance" to "it's definitely producing a 43% increase in activity the alpha3beta4 neuronal nicotinic receptors which is modifying activity in the dorsal nucleus of the vagus and nucleus ambiguious reducing activity by of the kappa and mu opioid receptors by 42% to reduce nociception.

Similarly even if, for argument's sake, holding your hand next to someones armpit and then wishing really hard at them* did produce some sort of physiologically detectable response you couldn't then rule out the possibility of it also producing deleterious effects too. AFAIK those studies only looked at efficacy not safety.

The last sentence would have all the QI buzzers going. "More research needed" is what people who don't read scientific papers think scientifc papers end with.

The author himself is a ... drum roll .... Spoiler:


Here's his account of his riveting discovery of the amazing healing properties of Reiki https://livingnow.com.au/scientists-journey-reiki/

Basically he read about it once, decided it was true, forked out a considerable sum of money to move to Reiki Level 1 and then the very next day decided he didn't want to drink coffee any more! You can't get much more scientifically convincing then that.

He goes on to explain how Reiki energy is actually somewhere on the EM spectrum, we all continue to wait with baited** breath for the world's first Reiki-receiving radio set.



*which is effectively what Reiki is.
Last edited by Little waster on Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Little waster » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:08 am

Nothing to see here, move along.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Little waster » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:09 am

Once is unfortunate, twice is just stupidity....

Apparently I can't tell the statistically significant difference between the edit button and the quote button. :oops:
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

User avatar
murmur
Snowbonk
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:09 am
Location: West of the fields

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by murmur » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:22 am

What the others said.

Those 3 papers are distinctly lacking in anything that supports reiki as a viable treatment option. And none come close to establishing any biologically plausible mechanism for its existence (other than theatrical placebo, to borrow a phrase), let alone any possible effect.

As an aside, given my background, I'm always intrigued as to how supposed depression and anxiety is "assessed" in a lot of "research", as many papers I've read are somewhat lacking in what I might regard as clinically viable assessments, relying on short form ticky boxes of dubious utility. So unless someone can show me a good assessment for depression or anxiety in their research I'm not inclined to put much credence in it.
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk

Nero
Clardic Fug
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:01 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Nero » Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:29 am

Thanks for all the responses on this thread. I have to admit I had assumed that to end up on PubMed the papers would have gone through some sort of robust peer review process. Clearly my mistake.

bmforre
Snowbonk
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by bmforre » Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:19 am

Little waster wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:09 am
Once is unfortunate, twice is just stupidity....

Apparently I can't tell the statistically significant difference between the edit button and the quote button. :oops:
Let me try to quote for you then:
He goes on to explain how Reiki energy is actually somewhere on the EM spectrum, we all continue to wait with baited** breath for the world's first Reiki-receiving radio set.
Tut tut ... sure the rollout of more and more WiFi and worse - 5g! - has drowned the valuable Reiki signals by now.
This also explains the low-validity observational results, obviously.

Further tests must be performed in radio-silent environment such as reported here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in- ... e-service/

When you tell Reiki friends about this please don't quote me. Quoting Little Waster and Washington Post should be sufficient.

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by secret squirrel » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:19 am

Nero wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:29 am
Thanks for all the responses on this thread. I have to admit I had assumed that to end up on PubMed the papers would have gone through some sort of robust peer review process. Clearly my mistake.
There's a strong bias towards false positives in even the most well regarded medical journals. The mainstream medical literature is not reliable, and the fringe stuff is worse.

Pianissimo
Bank Butt
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:56 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Pianissimo » Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:55 pm

Nero wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:29 am
Thanks for all the responses on this thread. I have to admit I had assumed that to end up on PubMed the papers would have gone through some sort of robust peer review process. Clearly my mistake.
The robustness of peer review really depends on who the “peers” are.

mikeh
Fuzzable
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:48 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by mikeh » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:59 pm

Pianissimo wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:55 pm
Nero wrote:
Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:29 am
Thanks for all the responses on this thread. I have to admit I had assumed that to end up on PubMed the papers would have gone through some sort of robust peer review process. Clearly my mistake.
The robustness of peer review really depends on who the “peers” are.
And of course, the knowledge and/or scruples of those representing the journal and publishers.

The vast majority of stuff in pubmed is just fine. But with ~2.5 million scientific papers published each year, even a fraction of a percentage being duff ones (for whatever reason) means there'll be a few hundred or a few thousand that muddy the waters. And I'd imagine a fair few of them would be indexed in pubmed.

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by secret squirrel » Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:25 am

mikeh wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:59 pm
The vast majority of stuff in pubmed is just fine. But with ~2.5 million scientific papers published each year, even a fraction of a percentage being duff ones (for whatever reason) means there'll be a few hundred or a few thousand that muddy the waters. And I'd imagine a fair few of them would be indexed in pubmed.
I don't think saying the vast majority is fine is really correct. A sizable minority, if not a majority, will be reporting false positives. The medical literature is not reliable. It is infected with the same methodological problems as other experimental sciences trying to tease small signals out of massive amounts of noise without being able to set up very precise experiments, and in addition there is the huge influence of drug companies who are exclusively motivated by the desire to sell new drugs.

greyspoke
Fuzzable
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by greyspoke » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:06 pm

Or old drugs, specially if they can dress them up as new ones and get a patent.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Tessa K » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:10 pm

Reiki by Skype? That says it all.

User avatar
Little waster
After Pie
Posts: 2385
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes

Re: Reiki Healing

Post by Little waster » Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:17 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 5:10 pm
Reiki by Skype? That says it all.
Exactly ... you'd use Whatsapp, shirley. ;)
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

Post Reply