This is one of the few things that kind of upsets and bothers me so much in the nursing world (well healthcare in general, but since im in nursing it bothers me when i see it with nurses more)
But so frequently there are so many people who recommend this alternative nonense, to seeking real medical attention, and it really just worries me.
Theres the obvious danger of interactions with real medication, but then it also promotes people to either avoid actually treating their problem. Or it takes money away from going to real healthcare, and instead ends up in the pockets of these charlatans.
In nursing school I saw it so incredibly frequently, and even in the hospital I see it somewhat often. Nurses who tell patients that eating grains causes their diabetes, or ranting about GMOs and this crap. Other nurses who are stubborn/ignorant enough to avoid getting vaccinated (flu shots!) for reasons other than legitimate medical reasons (id never expect someone with a history or guillain barre or allergies to force a shot on themselves)
If medical professionals want to do all this nonsense in their personal lives, thats their right. Its just when they bring it into the workplace and involve patients in it that it really worries me.
When its relatively harmless it doesn't bother me (ie some of the out there ideas that people may have for patients to improve their pain without drugs) fine. But when it just spreads ignorance and confuses the patient, its terrible.
Forty-five (45) subjects assigned at random into three groups. Interventions: Three treatment conditions: no treatment (rest only); Reiki treatment by experienced Reiki practitioner; and placebo treatment by a person with no knowledge of Reiki and who mimicked the Reiki treatment.
OUTCOME MEASURES:
Quantitative measures of autonomic nervous system function such as heart rate, cardiac vagal tone, blood pressure, cardiac sensitivity to baroreflex, and breathing activity were recorded continuously for each heartbeat. Values during and after the treatment period were compared with baseline data.
RESULTS:
Heart rate and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly in the Reiki group compared to both placebo and control groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
The study indicates that Reiki has some effect on the autonomic nervous system. However, this was a pilot study with relatively few subjects and the changes were relatively small. The results justify further, larger studies to look at the biological effects of Reiki treatment.
These studies include placebo groups (see above). Just because you discount the effects of Reiki does not mean that there have not been studies that prove that it does have at least SOME effects.
45 people divided into 3 groups ?
That 15 people in a group. The findings would be almost completely irrelevant at best.
Interesting how the results address diastolic blood pressure and not systolic. Wonder why that is. Selective reporting ?
And ill probably mention the most significant point, that theres absolutely zero data available from this study.
I believe that it is healthy to be critical and inquisitive/inquiring when interpreting research, whether the researchers are physicians, nurses, CAM practitioners or pharmaceutical companies.
Unfortunately I haven’t been able to access the full text of the Autonomic Nervous System Changes During Reiki Treatment – A Preliminary Study, only the abstract. The abstract is intriguing.. I agree that it’s odd that there is no mention of the systolic blood pressure in the results. I have to ask myself why it was omitted.
The authors claim that heart rate and diastolic pressure decreased significantly. I would love to see the numbers that support the use of that term. I would also like to know more about the design of the placebo/control group. How realistic was it? There are a lot of questions about the study design that remain unanswered.
OUTCOME MEASURES:
Quantitative measures of autonomic nervous system function such as heart rate, cardiac vagal tone, blood pressure, cardiac sensitivity to baroreflex, and breathing activity were recorded continuously for each heartbeat. Values during and after the treatment period were compared with baseline data.
Now this part really fascinates me. They measured blood pressure for every heartbeat? They actually had invasive monitoring of blood pressure during these Reiki sessions? Really?
How did they measure “cardiac vagal tone and sensitivity to baroreflex” and what pray tell is “breathing activity” that is being monitored with every heartbeat? Respiratory rate? Tidal volume? FiO2? EtCO2? Blood gas? I really would like to know more.
I only looked up the author with the least common name (easiest to find, I’m having a lazy moment) Oona McFarlane. It seems her degree is in the French language and Literature and that her area of expertise beside Reiki, involve Chakrabalancing, Firewalking, Reflexology and Energy Healing among others.
I do believe that some of the alternative methods can improve a person’s well-being in the sense that the attention and time offered by the practitioner can have a calming/soothing effect and the placebo effect is very much real. My concern though (as always with alternative methods) is that patients with serious conditions avoid clinically proven treatments and seek alternative methods which most likely have no effect at all on their disease. They might have an effect on the person's wallet though..
When an alternative method is proven to work through high-quality peer-reviewed double-blind randomized controlled trials, they cease to be “alternative”.
I hope that I haven't insulted anyone, that's not my intention. My intention is to point out the flaws/lack of information I see in the posted abstract.
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
Massage therapy isnt voodoo nonsense like Reiki. Id imagine the mechanism of action is similar to a hottub with jets, stretching etc. And at least something happens, believing in Reiki is no different than magic and other nonsense.
The "studies" people listed were pretty much junk studies. Pathetically irrelevant sample sizes, without comparing to an alternative treatment.
Distraction, placebo effect, music, talking to people etc all have been shown to have some sorts of impact on a person. So when a study says something like "Reiki is shown to have biological effects on sympathetic activity, albeit minor" . That doesnt mean that Reiki actually works, nor does it address if the Reiki magic actually caused anything, or if it was simply the person in there and the environment that just relaxes and distracts them.
I honestly feel bad for the people who believe in herbal therapy,having Reiki lumped in with herbal medications. Because at least some herbs do actually have medical potential (but desperately need research and to be controlled/regulated), while Reiki is just 100% pure trash and ridiculousness.
If Reiki helps a patient and keeps him/her off meds that have adverse side effects, what's the problem?
Doctors do prescribe fish oil , flax seed oil, niasan for cholesterol. That is herbal. OBs suggest DHA for fetal brain health. That is herbal. OBs and oncologists suggest massage and such for pain relief. Holistic health is part of medicine
If Reiki helps a patient and keeps him/her off meds that have adverse side effects what's the problem? And if the patient is only experiencing a placebo effect (go prove it), so what? The patient is getting better...that's what's important. [/quote']
The problem is the charlatans taking advantage of these gullible people.
Doctors do prescribe fish oil , flax seed oil, niasan for cholesterol. That is herbal. OBs suggest DHA for fetal brain health. That is herbal. OBs and oncologists suggest massage and such for pain relief. Holistic health is part of medicine
First of all its Niacin, and Niacin is Vitamin B3.
Second of all, fish oil comes from fish. Herbal medicine comes from herbs, which are plants.
But yes there is some science behind some herbal/alternative medicine. Nobody (not even me) has said that all herbals are bad. The problem is that many if not most are not sufficiently researched and or regulated like real medication. So you get a TON of crap, with very little legitimate stuff in it.
Holistic health overall is far far more of a sham ripping off gullible people looking for a quick or "natural" fix rather than a legitimate solution.
However if holistic were regulated/controlled/researched like real medication (instead of just being nonsense more often than not) I honestly think they could contribute to healthcare in a greater role.
So it's better they should take drugs that can cause renal failure or liver damage.
Im amazed at how many nurses think medicine is bad.
Yes medicine can have adverse effects, but the entire point is that the good they do outweighs the bad. Otherwise there would be no point for people to ever take them.
Even natural herbal supplements have side effects which can be JUST as dangerous as real medicine. Except since theyre not controlled/regulated and not researched as well they are far less predictable and can be more difficult to avoid (assuming the herbal actually does something and isnt just gelatin in which case it will do nothing.)
Again, Reiki is non sense, 1 junk bogus study doesn't even begin to prove otherwise.
And again, I posted quite a few studies. One of which has a sample size of over 2000. No, it is not the most highly studied form of alternative medicine, but there are multiple studies that suggest that it does have some effect.
KRVRN, BSN, RN
1,334 Posts
Oh I've been here.