to me, it's the ultimate measure of desperation on the part of nurses to develop independence from physicians. that it has been turned into a "science" demeans the nursing profession terribly!
while there can be certainly a psychological/placebo effect, the seriousness with which even some phd's in nursing believe in literal truth of therapeutic touch simply amazes me.
it's witchcraft. sheer absolute nonsense in its highest refined form. the techniques are quite laughable, and have no place in medicine, any more than folk remedies supplied by witch doctors.
yet at virtually every major university, there are ladies with phd's running around who literally believe they've developed these powers in their hands. that they can "ruffle" and "realign" forces.
to many, this is the holy grail of nursing. to me, it's delusionary.
I don't think I'm the only one that has access to any secret knowledge. Myself and others and asked why you don't look at that knowledge. I've now posted some books full of that knowledge so you now can walk in both worlds and pick and chose what's appropriate to your patient. But, you have to do more that just read about it. You must experience it.
I really have no emotional attachment to what you believe. I just have time on my hands and wish to present a new world for you to consider...if you want.
Let's cut to the quick: your 'energy fields' in relation to the human body has a name where I come from: a 'soul'.
I have my ideas and understanding on how best to use our inherent 'souls/energy fields': you have yours.
The difference? I'M not trying to codify my understanding as core nursing knowledge.
And yet still, as I tell you again and again that we disagree over THERAPY (prayer vs. TT) and not the EXISTENCE of a soul, you throw up article after article to attempt to 'prove' that which we don't disagree without any effort to explain why you feel TT is a valid enough therapy to be included in nursing's core knowledge TO THE EXCLUSION of prayer.
And the kicker: you (not YOU, general you to means believers of TT) dismiss my understanding as not being a valid initiation into this 'new world' (not so new, btw) that you claim exclusive membership over.
Because I have a different understanding, you dismiss my take as something that you have 'no emotional attachment' about. That's your right, of course. But it's equally my right to have 'no emotional attachment' over TT.
All things being equal, to demand TT's inclusion in nursing's core knowledge all the while DISMISSING my view of the same 'energy' as 'uninitiated' is arrogant elitism.
You don't have to 'open a new world for me'. Those doors were opened long ago. And the fact that you cannot see that your bias is exclusive of the studied beliefs of others explains why you cannot envision the damage to nursing that occurs when you redefine its core by - not just faith-based practices, but YOUR faith bases practices to the exclusion of all else.
No, I have no emotional attachment to YOUR beliefs either. But, that's not to say that I have no emotional stake when you attempt to tread on my beliefs in order to promote yours.
without any effort to explain why you feel TT is a valid enough therapy to be included in nursing's core knowledge TO THE EXCLUSION of prayer.
I wasn't aware the op was saying anything about prayer. I just think TT should be an elective...that doesn't make it core knowledge of nursing. Prayer is probably more of a religious thing and can be covered in church.
No, I have no emotional attachment to YOUR beliefs either. But, that's not to say that I have no emotional stake when you attempt to tread on my beliefs in order to promote yours.
Like I said before, I'm merely presenting info and sources for you and others, not threading on your beliefs. I'm not a missionary.
hmm... since tt is based on quantum physics, then i guess any scientist who studies quantum physics would be an expert in tt. after all, they'd have a superb understanding of it. much better than the originators of tt. i wonder why they haven't documented this phenomena where the material world can be influenced with thought directed energy fields? is it part of a big conspiracy against society, so that western medicine can wring dollars from us while it kills us?
let's get real. tt and science in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms. tt is faith based gobbledygook. any credible scientist would laugh at the "science" linking tt with quantum physics. what a joke!
i don't understand why tt has such weak results. after all, we're only talking about energy. why can't tt do surgery, reform organs, cure cancer, cause amputated limbs to regrow.. heck, it should be able to reverse the ageing process. after all, it's based on quantum physics!
and i do agree that housekeeping is very well qualified to adminsiter tt.. after all, they've been taking out the garbage for a long time :).
hmm... since tt is based on quantum physics, then i guess any scientist who studies quantum physics would be an expert in tt. after all, they'd have a superb understanding of it. much better than the originators of tt. i wonder why they haven't documented this phenomena where the material world can be influenced with thought directed energy fields? is it part of a big conspiracy against society, so that western medicine can wring dollars from us while it kills us?
let's get real. tt and science in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms. tt is faith based gobbledygook. any credible scientist would laugh at the "science" linking tt with quantum physics. what a joke!
i don't understand why tt has such weak results. after all, we're only talking about energy. why can't tt do surgery, reform organs, cure cancer, cause amputated limbs to regrow.. heck, it should be able to reverse the ageing process. after all, it's based on quantum physics!
and i do agree that housekeeping is very well qualified to adminsiter tt.. after all, they've been taking out the garbage for a long time :).
Right now, I'm hearing an opinion over and over, based on what I don't know, the experiment of one eleven year old child... Several links have been provided to make it EASY to look at SCIENTIFIC WORK. Going on and on about credible science makes no sense at all when totatally ignoring the scientific work that has been offered. This is no longer a discussion at this point.
Read the work, then comment.
No one ever said that understanding quantam physics would make anybody a practitioner of TT or any of the other "stuff" quoted above so why go there over and over? And the conspiracy nonsense is just that. A serious discussion demands more than just opinion and derision. Continuing to repeat this type of verbage is a waste of our time, and is contributing nothing. Moving the discussion forward with commentary on actual work read would be much appreciated, and in keeping with logical thought. To be taken seriously, do some work here. Not being wiling to look at the studies, and comment is damaging your argument.
Just because you CALL something science doesn't make it so. Science has a high level of standards. This is why evolution is a THEORY and not a SCIENTIFIC LAW: it cannot contradict another law to be a law itself and it actually contradicts 3 of them.
I know this is off-topic, but which three laws does the theory of evolution contradict?
Prayer is probably more of a religious thing and can be covered in church.
Bingo.
And SO CAN THE EASTERN RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHIES SUCH AS THOSE THAT TT ARE BASED UPON.
My Point, exactly.
The arrogant elitism to which I refer to is this unrealisitic need/desire to pass this Eastern RELIGION off as 'science' to the exclusion of other religions.
In other words: my religion is really real, yours is just a belief.
And how do you know this? You can feel it, of course. TT is something that is very real to you. The arrogance comes from assuming that the same isn't the case for other believers in other religions. The elitism comes from trying to codify your beliefs to the exclusion of others.
I assure you, my faith is fact for me and it excludes your views of TT. Of this, I have no doubts. The difference is that I'm not trying to change nursing into a maid servant of my religious beliefs.
My religious beliefs are indeed best expressed in a religious vein. The SAME holds true for the Eastern religious beliefs that serve as the basis for TT.
I know this is off-topic, but which three laws does the theory of evolution contradict?
1. The Law of Biogenesis: Only living things reproduce like living things.
The argument for macro-evolution is that this is true but slight differences over time change the equation, not one generation to the next. That's fine. But the concept that original life comes from non-life is a violation of this Law. If that were ever possible, it should still be an observable phenomenom today. To date, there has been no evidence of some 'spark' that can create life from non-life.
2. First Law of Thermodynamics (The Law of the Conservation of Energy): "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, plus the amount added in the form of work done on the system."
In other words: all energy in the universe is already present in a closed system. Heat and work are simply forms of energy transfer. A 'big bang' violates this Law. This is the linear logical flaw of evolution: "what was before that?" Even if you go back to a pre-big bang, what was before that? Something simply can't come from nothing.
But its more than that. Conservation of Energy points out that energy translations (e.g. bound vs free) occur as a function of time. So it's not just that 'something comes from nothing', but that very something is composed of precise equations of energy as a function of time. The universe simply couldn't be created by direct transfers of energy forms as a big bang 'settled out', thereby CREATING time. Such energy IS A FUNCTION of time.
In other words, time translation symmetry is the basis for the conservation of energy. Energy is conserved BECAUSE of its place in time. It's description, therefore, cannot be sensitive to a starting timeline (big bang) because it's description ITSELF is a function of time. (This is an expression of "Noether's theorem", if you'd like to look it up.)
(some 'quantum physics' ideas are based upon these very concepts of free vs. bound energy over time. When you get to the uncertainty principle - a "conjugate pair" of energy and time - of quantum mechanical energy: you are looking at the literal hand of God. You see, the uncertainty principle cannot violate Conservation because it's a 'special case' bridge that, for lack of a better definition, doubles back on itself as a FUNCTION of time. Thus, science proves the handiwork of God - and the existence of Heaven. Said interactions must lie outside of time to effect the change in the flow of time that makes this special case, well, 'special'. It points directly to a shaping flow - from outside the universe - of the conjugate energy/time pairing within the universe.)
3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy Law): "The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
Left alone in its natural state, things tend to not just deteriorate, but deteriorate completely. Evolution depends on the concept that living things improve in structure over time. This violates the Entropy Law.
It's not just that living things are a 'special case' that bypasses entropy because of the 'living nature' of life. Fine, I could accept that. But, such a system CANNOT BE CREATED by a system that DOES observe the Law of Entropy.
The fact that we (living things) are a 'special case' exception to Entropy cannot have come from an original system BOUND by the Laws of Entropy.
~~~~~
I'm a biologist. I'm not dissing micro-evolution. I can show it to you in a few generations of fruit flies. I'm not really dissing macro-evolution, either. But, macro-evolution, if you boil it down to these three Laws: it directly points to an outside source of Creation.
To the point, a key tenet of Scientific Law is that no Law can contradict another, or how could they both be 'Laws'? Because evolution violates these three laws, it remains a 'Theory'. At some point, probably in my lifetime, there will be a successful push to make evolution a 'Law'. But, that will be a political decision, not a scientific one.
Right now, I'm hearing an opinion over and over, based on what I don't know, the experiment of one eleven year old child... Several links have been provided to make it EASY to look at SCIENTIFIC WORK. Going on and on about credible science makes no sense at all when totatally ignoring the scientific work that has been offered. This is no longer a discussion at this point.
Read the work, then comment.
No one ever said that understanding quantam physics would make anybody a practitioner of TT or any of the other "stuff" quoted above so why go there over and over? And the conspiracy nonsense is just that. A serious discussion demands more than just opinion and derision. Continuing to repeat this type of verbage is a waste of our time, and is contributing nothing. Moving the discussion forward with commentary on actual work read would be much appreciated, and in keeping with logical thought. To be taken seriously, do some work here. Not being wiling to look at the studies, and comment is damaging your argument.
actually, my brother is one of the foremost scientists in the country (with an outstanding knowledge of quantum physics and a phd from georgia tech), whom i've spoken to about tt. he found the concepts and conclusions "completely ridiculous" and laughable. i have to trust his judgement when it comes to understanding quantum physics, which is the ground floor of your claims.
psuedo-science "research" is conducted by "researchers" with an agenda to prove their theories correct. there is a fair amount of it out there. and these folks call what they do science. i don't recognize it as such. their conclusions involve interpretation and judgement. for example, if a "researcher" reports his/her results as 87% effective, what does that mean or prove to me? does this make it solid science? how can i evaluate their methods and techniques? i have to rely on mainstream peer review in the scientific community.
if there were any substantial proof, the scientific community would be squarely aligned behind practices such as tt. it would be easy to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. scientists formerly skeptical of the practice would be embracing it. why aren't they?
if there were any substantial benefit to this practice, there would be HOARDS of people practicing it. burn units would be full of tt practioners causing healing energy to flow, etc. hospitals would be set up as tt hospitals providing miraculous wound healing, etc. we surely wouldn't be giving as much pain medication. why isn't this so? it would certainly give a hospital a HUGE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. the market would ensure that this practice was rewarded to the extent that it would be a common practice. the ABSENCE OF THIS ALONE tells me that practices such as tt aren't effective, and that there isn't a substantial, demonstrative benefit beyond a placebo effect. can you tell me where the hospital offering tt miracles is? can you tell me why comparitively few nurses believe in this practice? if it's so beneficial, why isn't it used every day, in every hospital?
the absence of any substantial benefit limits the practice to those who believe based on faith.
sorry, but i've got to call unproven nonsense as exactly what it is: unproven nonsense.
A few years ago when I was in Hawaii, some drug companies staged an elaborate event for physicians and their families just down the street from me. It was very hush hush. Willie Nelson and Madonna were there. Wander how much this deal cost?
You probably don't want to read the following books:
Zenman: I agree that each of the above references contains some truths, but that doesn't mean that PROFESSIONAL nurses should resort to practices that aren't based on evidence. Perhaps graduate students would be better served in learning how to conduct research studies on alternative therapies before CHARGING patients for this "service." Studies have proven that enough people, under some circumstances, receive relief with acupuncture and therefore some insurances will pay for acupuncture services. At this point, therapeutic touch has been disproven as a reliable treatment - no more effective than a placebo, which I think we all believe to have some effect. Until it is proved to even deserve scrutiny it doesn't deserve to be in a nursing curriculum. People can study it elsewhere.
hmm... since tt is based on quantum physics, then i guess any scientist who studies quantum physics would be an expert in tt. after all, they'd have a superb understanding of it. much better than the originators of tt. i wonder why they haven't documented this phenomena where the material world can be influenced with thought directed energy fields? is it part of a big conspiracy against society, so that western medicine can wring dollars from us while it kills us?
let's get real. tt and science in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms. tt is faith based gobbledygook. any credible scientist would laugh at the "science" linking tt with quantum physics. what a joke!
i don't understand why tt has such weak results. after all, we're only talking about energy. why can't tt do surgery, reform organs, cure cancer, cause amputated limbs to regrow.. heck, it should be able to reverse the ageing process. after all, it's based on quantum physics!
and i do agree that housekeeping is very well qualified to adminsiter tt.. after all, they've been taking out the garbage for a long time :).
I'm feeling remorse about what I said about housekeeping. It is an insult to housekeeping.
actually, my brother is one of the foremost scientists in the country (with an outstanding knowledge of quantum physics and a phd from georgia tech), whom i've spoken to about tt. he found the concepts and conclusions "completely ridiculous" and laughable. i have to trust his judgement when it comes to understanding quantum physics, which is the ground floor of your claims.
psuedo-science "research" is conducted by "researchers" with an agenda to prove their theories correct. there is a fair amount of it out there. and these folks call what they do science. i don't recognize it as such. their conclusions involve interpretation and judgement. for example, if a "researcher" reports his/her results as 87% effective, what does that mean or prove to me? does this make it solid science? how can i evaluate their methods and techniques? i have to rely on mainstream peer review in the scientific community.
if there were any substantial proof, the scientific community would be squarely aligned behind practices such as tt. it would be easy to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. scientists formerly skeptical of the practice would be embracing it. why aren't they?
if there were any substantial benefit to this practice, there would be HOARDS of people practicing it. burn units would be full of tt practioners causing healing energy to flow, etc. hospitals would be set up as tt hospitals providing miraculous wound healing, etc. we surely wouldn't be giving as much pain medication. why isn't this so? it would certainly give a hospital a HUGE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. the market would ensure that this practice was rewarded to the extent that it would be a common practice. the ABSENCE OF THIS ALONE tells me that practices such as tt aren't effective, and that there isn't a substantial, demonstrative benefit beyond a placebo effect. can you tell me where the hospital offering tt miracles is? can you tell me why comparitively few nurses believe in this practice? if it's so beneficial, why isn't it used every day, in every hospital?
the absence of any substantial benefit limits the practice to those who believe based on faith.
sorry, but i've got to call unproven nonsense as exactly what it is: unproven nonsense.
I guess this means YOU WON'T LOOK at any of the studies suggested. END OF DISCUSSION. You and your brother already know it all. Got it. Why bother pretending to have a discussion? Continue preaching to the choir.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
Let's cut to the quick: your 'energy fields' in relation to the human body has a name where I come from: a 'soul'.
I have my ideas and understanding on how best to use our inherent 'souls/energy fields': you have yours.
The difference? I'M not trying to codify my understanding as core nursing knowledge.
And yet still, as I tell you again and again that we disagree over THERAPY (prayer vs. TT) and not the EXISTENCE of a soul, you throw up article after article to attempt to 'prove' that which we don't disagree without any effort to explain why you feel TT is a valid enough therapy to be included in nursing's core knowledge TO THE EXCLUSION of prayer.
And the kicker: you (not YOU, general you to means believers of TT) dismiss my understanding as not being a valid initiation into this 'new world' (not so new, btw) that you claim exclusive membership over.
Because I have a different understanding, you dismiss my take as something that you have 'no emotional attachment' about. That's your right, of course. But it's equally my right to have 'no emotional attachment' over TT.
All things being equal, to demand TT's inclusion in nursing's core knowledge all the while DISMISSING my view of the same 'energy' as 'uninitiated' is arrogant elitism.
You don't have to 'open a new world for me'. Those doors were opened long ago. And the fact that you cannot see that your bias is exclusive of the studied beliefs of others explains why you cannot envision the damage to nursing that occurs when you redefine its core by - not just faith-based practices, but YOUR faith bases practices to the exclusion of all else.
No, I have no emotional attachment to YOUR beliefs either. But, that's not to say that I have no emotional stake when you attempt to tread on my beliefs in order to promote yours.
~faith,
Timothy.