Is There Scientific Data to Support Holistic Health Treatments?

CharlieRN · Feb 26, 2005

Not to beat a dead horse, but here's another useful link:http://www.phact.org/e/tt/

RN MT · Feb 26, 2005

Hi Charlie,

I also find Healing Touch awesome, particularly in the last few hours of life. For me, the level I techniques have served me well. Although I have studied through Level 3 (It was IIB at the time), the first techniques have been the ones I .employed the most.

If you go to www.ahna.org, you will find a link to the Colorado School of healing Touch (I believe it is called that.)

All the best,

Ethlyne

CharlieRN · Mar 1, 2005

Ethlyne,

Please read my post again. Even though I have practiced it and "felt" the "energy field". I do not find healing touch awesome. I find it appalling. I believe that the practioners are mostly self deceived.

In a well designed, double blind study done in France, a professional practioner of healing touch was not even able to identify if his patient was even present, by feeling the "energy field".

Bottom line, IT DOES NOT WORK! The appearence of success is pure placebo effect.

madi_88 · Mar 2, 2005

Never mind all those "studies" - it does work (accompanied w/ narcotics) believe me - I have been a palliative care nurse for yrs - and if it works and we don't know why (scientifically) WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? Just be calm and do it - it works, as evidenced by pts and colleagues....remember - what ever we can do.....:)

ShirleyR · Mar 6, 2005

I worked in an inpatient unit where we had a retired nurse that was an instructor for HT, she volunteered on our unit. We saw how effective Ht was when the patient was experiencing terminal restlessness. Many of our patients that appeared to have difficulty passing, whether from pain, spiritual &/or emmotional issues, were calmed & passed peacefully shortly after or during HT. She onced performed HT on me, took about 30 minutes and I saw vivid colors while my eyes were closed and felt so refreshed & peaceful when she was through. Placebo or not it works. I'm not one of those that believes everything I hear about or sees, I usually have to experience it myself. Give it a try, with an open mind.

tracytoon · Mar 7, 2005

I read a great article about healing touch in the March 2004 issue of Spirituality & Health, the article was called Hi Tech and Healing Touch, used in mainstream hospitals. I was impressed and pleased with the integration philosophy.

CharlieRN · Mar 11, 2005

madi

In a pallative care setting where your pts are just trying to die in peace, use whatever will accomplish that, short of theraputic assassination. But in any other setting, where we are expected to practice techniques that lead to cure or at least do no harm , TT is masking symptoms that need real treatment. It is not ok to give a Narcotic when the pt needs surgery.

kmchugh · Mar 24, 2005

Never mind all those "studies" - it does work (accompanied w/ narcotics) believe me - I have been a palliative care nurse for yrs - and if it works and we don't know why (scientifically) WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? Just be calm and do it - it works, as evidenced by pts and colleagues....remember - what ever we can do.....:)

As a general rule, I stay out of this part of the board. I am of a scientific bent, and find most "alternative" therapies to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. However, I am aware of rare instances of therapies that were once considered to be "alternative" becoming mainstream. That said....

This is a dangerous attitude for a nurse to have. "Never mind what the studies say, this works!!" Would you accept the same attitude from one of those evil drug companies promoting a new drug? "Never mind what the studies say about this not curing the intended disease, it works!" What would your attitude be to that? (What is interesting here is that if a company said this about a drug we wouldn't accept it at all. There would be an absolute uprising among those in the "altmed"community. However, these same "altmed" folks accept exactly that kind of attitude when it comes from those promoting alternative therapies and supplements that don't need FDA scrutiny.)

Honest studies have demonstrated that therapeutic touch has absolutely no effect. Even studies designed by TT practitioners demonstrate this. See the Turner burn study. At the end of the study, Turner concluded that therapeutic touch was effective and we needed to study how to better utilize the modality. However, a quick look at the data published in the study demonstrated that therapeutic touch was completely without merit. This study, in which the study methods were heavily weighted in favor of TT, and in which the data were massaged to put TT in the best possible light (I examined this study closely, and even corresponded with the study's author) demonstrated that TT was at best without any effect whatsoever.

It doesn't work. When you say "ignore the studies" all you accomplish is to harm the credibility of nurses.

Kevin McHugh

Edited to add: Remember, when you say "as evidenced by pts and colleagues" you are referring to what is known as "anecdotal evidence." While anecdotal evidence may be a good place to begin a study, always remember the mantra "data is not the plural of anecdote."

KM

zenman · Mar 24, 2005

Those who know me are aware that I don't care much for formal, empirical research. Why should I? Millions of dollars have been spent by, for example, pharmaceutical companies only to have their products pulled off the market when people started dying after taking the "empirically-proven effective" drug. Maybe it was only effective with lab mice!

I see a big push in the alternative/complementary medicine crowd to do empirical research to prove that their approach is effective. Here's where I have a problem. Traditional Chinese Medicine has been around for thousands of years whereas modern medicine has only been around for a hundred or so. Modern medicine is a very expensive system based on treating people after they are sick, while the Chinese have a very inexpensive system based on keeping people well. Some of the Chinese doctors I know laugh when someone mentions research to prove that their system works, or that western medicine has no cure for the comon cold. Their research, which has consisted of treating real people, has already proven itself. If it's worked for so long, why do you need a formal study to prove that it works?

Effectiveness is the strongest measurement of truth. It's funny to have physicians as clients (even funnier why they actually visit you) and see their minds working overtime trying to fit this "alternative" stuff into their frame of reference. :chuckle

Another reason I don't like research is that two different researchers can do identical studies and come up with different results. Here's where the problem lies; the people doing the research have an effect on the results, even in a double-blind study where, for example, no one knows who is getting a placebo or not. The patient knows that he or she is also in a drug study and probably hoping that they are getting the "real" drug. The doctor, who knows he is involved in research, might hope that a certain patient is getting the real thing because he identifies with the guy. That alone will change the results, as will the consciousness of the researchers. Basically, every study is at fault. Much of what goes on in "modern" medicine, including surgery is placebo.

And a primary reason I dislike research is that insurance companies will pounce on the research touting the effectiveness of a certain modality and only pay for that type treatment because it's "been proven" effective. Keep in mind how effective it may, or may not be. I can see an insurance company telling an acupuncturist that he can only place needles in certain "effective" points or they won't cover the cost of the treatment.

Regarding "touch" therapies, the Touch Therapy Institute of the Maimi Medical School is doing a lot of studies.

I guess research does keep some people in jobs and for that I should be thankful.

kmchugh · Mar 24, 2005

Those who know me are aware that I don't care much for formal, empirical research. Why should I? Millions of dollars have been spent by, for example, pharmaceutical companies only to have their products pulled off the market when people started dying after taking the "empirically-proven effective" drug. Maybe it was only effective with lab mice!

So, your preferred method then, for alternative therapies as well as for drugs released by pharmaceutical companies, would be to simply release the product to the public? No research necessary or desired. Or does that only hold true for "ancient therapies," while all "new therapies" should be tested thoroughly? Such as those "evil chemicals" released by the pharmaceutical companies?

Kevin McHugh

zenman · Mar 25, 2005

So, your preferred method then, for alternative therapies as well as for drugs released by pharmaceutical companies, would be to simply release the product to the public? No research necessary or desired. Or does that only hold true for "ancient therapies," while all "new therapies" should be tested thoroughly? Such as those "evil chemicals" released by the pharmaceutical companies?
Kevin McHugh

You can do all the research you want as long as you realize the limitations involved. I still remember one of my first stat books, titled something like, "How to Lie With Statistics." Research is analogous to a business plan; it provides some guidelines. I've also been involved with drug studies. By the way, "modern medicine" is now considered "ancient" in comparison to modern science. What I'm basically saying is not to be a zealot to any one approach or you'll have a blind spot; be open to what might be.