"Pranic Healing" for healthcare providers - page 3

I recently recieved a pamphlet in the mail for a "Pranic Healing" weekend seminar for healthcare providers. Course fee: $400. For $400 the course promises to teach me how to heal my patients with... Read More

  1. by   DaFreak71
    Quote from zenman
    Well you are cause I have a huge library and don't want to spent too much time looking. I think I posted it here once before but not sure. I'm on the way to Bangkok now so might look when I get back. Did read this "Ten things wrong with medical journals" today at http://www.thelastpsychiatrist.com/
    Yeah, that was an interesting link. It's someone's blog. And no mention of JAMA, Lundberg's firing, TT study, nothin'.

    Have a good trip to Bangkok, sounds like fun. If I were with you, I'd buy you a beer. Lemme know if you ever find the article. You can PM me if you'd like.
  2. by   Ariesbsn
    This is one of those things where I feel if you are interested in the idea, have $400.00 left over after you meet all of your financial obligations and have nothing else that you need or want to do with the time the class takes, why not? You may learn something.

    I also feel that you shouldn't use this on your patients. Since it wasn't part of Kaplan's NCLEX preparation class, I would wager that energy manipulation is out of our scope of practice.
  3. by   DaFreak71
    Quote from Ariesbsn
    I also feel that you shouldn't use this on your patients. Since it wasn't part of Kaplan's NCLEX preparation class, I would wager that energy manipulation is out of our scope of practice.
    Despite it not being a part of the Kaplan NCLEX prep, many nursing programs still teach it. It is irresponsible junk science. I recently read an interesting analogy to this:

    Therapeutic touching is a method of making something seem legitimate when it is not (has never been proven, not even come close), just like creationists are now calling what they do as "Intelligent design".

    UNTIL TT can be proven, it is absolutely irresponsible for anyone to lead a patient to believe that it can help them. It has NO basis in science and nursing is suppose to be science based (evidence based). NANDA has lost several credibility points for including this dx.
  4. by   Ariesbsn
    Wow! We had a half day lecture about it, but were never tested on the material.

    Say, can you use "energy field disturbance" as a diagnosis for a person who repeatedly causes light bulbs to not only become unusable, but also issue a loud pop, and, many times shatter, when they flip the switch? I am not talking about every so often they flip a light switch and the light bulb doesn't work. I am talking about phases that last for days.
  5. by   DaFreak71
    Quote from Ariesbsn
    Wow! We had a half day lecture about it, but were never tested on the material.

    Say, can you use "energy field disturbance" as a diagnosis for a person who repeatedly causes light bulbs to not only become unusable, but also issue a loud pop, and, many times shatter, when they flip the switch? I am not talking about every so often they flip a light switch and the light bulb doesn't work. I am talking about phases that last for days.
    LOL, that's actually quite funny. Seems to me that if your energy field was truly disturbed, it would be evident in some physical way. The whole light bulb thing made me LOL IRL cuz it seems like if a light bulb is gonna pop, it waits until I enter the room. OH NO! My energy field MUST be disturbed. Can't wait until I tell my primary physician about it, I wonder what he'll prescribe? Obviously something to calm my energy field, but I'm already taking benzo's so what other choices are there? LOL.
  6. by   FireStarterRN
    I think pranic healing could be part of a holistic healing center. The ancients knew a lot in my opinion, even though they didn't have all the fancy stuff that we have. But Western medicine tends to treat problems after they have gotten out of hand, and some of our methods also cause other imbalances in the body.

    I don't know much about pranic healing, but I have a lot of respect for the intelligence and knowledge of people from that part of the world where civilization has existed for such a long time.
  7. by   zenman
    Quote from lostdruid
    Also, if you could link where JAMA wishes they had never published the study, I'd be interested to read it. I'm seriously not trying to be a pain, it's just that I'm totally interested in this concept and I personally feel that one MUST have a sense of skepticism when evaluating claims that demand proof. I use the word skepticism to mean "questioning nature", not necessarily to mean absolute closed mindedness despite evidence to the contrary. What's that phrase...incredible claims require incredible evidence? Plus according to logic, it's the responsibility of those making incredible claims to prove them, not the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove them.
    This link http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990121-jama/ has the details about the firing of the editor, including his poor selection of articles to publish, including the TT article. Maybe I was picking up that JAMA "wished they had oversight" on their editor and therefore wished they had never published it. You can find a lot by posting "JAMA therapeutic touch" into google.
  8. by   zenman
    Quote from lostdruid
    Yeah, that was an interesting link. It's someone's blog. And no mention of JAMA, Lundberg's firing, TT study, nothin'.

    Have a good trip to Bangkok, sounds like fun. If I were with you, I'd buy you a beer. Lemme know if you ever find the article. You can PM me if you'd like.
    No the blog had nothing to do with the "old news" but it was interesting about medical journals. I've asked him to do the same regarding double-blind studies.
  9. by   DaFreak71
    Quote from zenman
    This link http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990121-jama/ has the details about the firing of the editor, including his poor selection of articles to publish, including the TT article. Maybe I was picking up that JAMA "wished they had oversight" on their editor and therefore wished they had never published it. You can find a lot by posting "JAMA therapeutic touch" into google.
    Here is what the article you linked to me said:

    " Media reports, however, speculated that the sex study was just the latest in a series of editorial decisions on topics of current controversy and public debate that caused the AMA to shudder. Lundberg devoted a November JAMA issue to alternative medicine and approved recent controversial articles on euthanasia, and an eleven year-old's debunking of therapeutic touch."

    I've underlined and put into bold some key words that make it clear to me that the JAMA did not fire him for publishing the study on TT and that it did not "wish they had never published it". In fact, all the articles I read on google come to his defense of providing, while controversial, interesting information. It was the Clinton "oral sex question" and its timing that got him fired.

    The media can speculate all it wants, but so far I haven't found a single reference to JAMA wishing they hadn't "allowed" him to publish the TT study. He was a controversial guy, that upsets people.

    Regarding TT, weather or not JAMA debunked it or not is not all that important. It's the faulty science behind the theory of TT that debunks it all by itself. The more important question is "Why is NANDA including this as a nursing DX without having a scientific basis for it"? In my opinion, this is just an example of NANDA jumping on the holistic bandwagon without taking the time to consider the plausibility of TT.

    Anyhow, hope ya had a good time in Bangkok.

    P.S. Do not assume based on what I have written that I summarily disregard holistic remedies or treatments, it's just that in the realm of medical/nursing science, it should be proven to be effective, not merely anecdotal.
  10. by   zenman
    Quote from lostdruid
    In fact, all the articles I read on google come to his defense of providing, while controversial, interesting information. It was the Clinton "oral sex question" and its timing that got him fired.
    The Rocky Mountain Skeptics said: "The Journal of the American Medical Association is a well-established publication with a reputation for printing reliable information that physicians can use to cure diseases and save lives. It is among the most prestigious and accepted science-based magazines in the world. It is listened to; its publication is eagerly anticipated every week and the popular media frequently report on significant or interesting information that it contains.

    It is therefore, doubly egregious, indeed, completely irresponsible, for JAMA editors to give space to work that, at the very best, can be described as competent for a 4th grade science project. As shown above, the quality of the research is exemplary of either very bad science or adequate school work. No matter how desperate we in the skeptical community are for a win in our column, JAMA, as a respected member of this community, did us no service by either the publication of a schoolgirl's project or the subsequent over-promotion of the results and pronouncements about the works' significance and policy implications."

    It's pretty bad when the skeptics "chew you out." This was just a link or so away from the other link.

    Has there been any studies on TT published in a peer-reviewed journal? I might take a gander if I get time but my plate is full with shamanism, lol.
    Last edit by zenman on Oct 20, '07
  11. by   DaFreak71
    Quote from zenman
    Has there been any studies on TT published in a peer-reviewed journal? I might take a gander if I get time but my plate is full with shamanism, lol.
    I will look into that, I know that there is little to no actual science that verifies TT, and for that very reason I don't believe it earns a place in the nursing diagnoses. I would be very interested in reading a peer reviewed study of TT, I found any yet, but will do additional research soon and get back to about it.

    Speaking of shamanism, (and I know that this has little correlation to what you mean by shamanism), but I play World of Warcraft and am retired from Everquest, had a shaman character that I liked very much, lol.
  12. by   DaFreak71
    In my search for peer reviewed studies of TT, I have learned something interesting. The people who say it works are loathe to have it tested, so it's very hard to find any sort of studies that are peer reviewed. I think the articles I've linked below say that around 40,000 nurses do TT, so you'd think there would be objective evidence of its efficacy.

    I tried to find "neutral" articles about this issue, and that proved very difficult. Supplied below are the best I could come up with. I also want to add that, on the face of it, the skeptic articles have a very valid point that I think is being overlooked. I think scientists have to have a a skeptical mind so that it doesn't skew their conclusions, but to go into it at the outset that it isn't going to work doesn't seem to serve a good purpose either. That is why the need for objective studies need to be done in order to verify or debunk the TT issue. I find it interesting that the 40,000 people who practice it are unwilling to demonstrate the effectiveness. That, to me, is telling.

    Please peruse the articles as you have the time. I've tried to be as fair as possible. I'd also be glad to read any articles you have on this issue as well. By the way, if you'd like to take this to email, please PM me and we can start a correspondence in the event this thread dies out. You interest me, lol.

    The Google search terms I used were "peer reviewed TT studies", Peer reviewed TT, TT reviewed, TT studies, and Therapeutic touch studies.

    http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...9.2000.00279.x

    http://www.csicop.org/articles/therapeutic-touch/

    http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-07/tho...d-therapy.html

    http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery...xtraproof.html

    http://www.americanatheist.org/aut98/T2/courcey.html

    http://www.discord.org/~lippard/beliefs/0001.html

    http://www.cicap.org/new/articolo.php?id=101025
  13. by   zenman
    Quote from lostdruid
    I find it interesting that the 40,000 people who practice it are unwilling to demonstrate the effectiveness. That, to me, is telling.
    Yes, that is interesting. Wonder if the Reiki people have any studies?

    Please peruse the articles as you have the time.
    Will do

close