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 would like to see the articles that you got the statistics from.
You guys make it sound like the smallpox and polio vaccines worked just because people had 'faith' in the placebo of such treatments.
1952 Peak Polio 'paralytic' cases in the U.S. - 21,000.
1954: introduction and widespread use of IPV (Polio Vaccine) = yearly rapid decline of 'paralytic' cases from 1955 - 1979, when polio was 'eradicated' in the U.S.
All the years 1979-2006 - 0 cases.
(Paralytic outcomes averaged 1:200 infections. So, 21,000 paralytic outcomes equates to 4,200,000 infections in 1952 down to ZERO known cases in 1979).
What a great placebo that vaccine was, eh? Need I quote statistics on the effects of the vaccine 'placebos' on smallpox?
I guess the anti-retroviruses that have plummeted AIDS deaths (where they are used) are 'placebos' that AIDS infected people needed to overcome the 'energy/spiritual' cause of their disease? If this is the case: QUICK! we need to get millions of 'penny per dose' sugar pills to Africa as a (wink wink) campaign to bring anti-retroviruses there.
"Accumulating data from clinical and pathogenesis studies continue to support early institution of potent antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection" - JAMA
I guess the consistent studies that show that an ACEI plus B-Blocker reduces risk of subsequent heart attack by half is just a PR campaign to get Americans hooked on useless drugs. . .
Multiple articles from peer-reviewed medical journals (JAMA, Lancet) for each fact sheet.
Or that it's a documented fact that the five yr survival rate after dx w/ certain cancers have improved ONE THOUSAND PERCENT over the last 50 yrs is a carefully orchestrated lie.
Same for the fact that the rate of death by childbirth since 1900 has dropped so far as to be negligble.
"At the beginning of the century, maternal death rates were around their historical level of nearly 1 in 100 for live births. The number today in the United States is 1 in 10,000, a 99% decline." - WHO
Here's the bottom line: practitioners of TT want the CREDIBILITY of science based research without being bothered by the methodology that CREATED that credibility in the first place.
And so, it attacks science from both fronts: claiming it IS accepted science knowing full well that such acceptance is NOT general in nature. Then, on the other front, attacking the credibility of the science community as a whole for failing to accept IT.
Here's the problem: accepting faith for faith is one thing; accepting faith for science is another thing entirely. And it doesn't matter how much you gush about 'quantum physics'; that doesn't make an entirely different concept (TT)science. You simply used a little known and difficult to understand component of science to make a baseless claim in the hopes that few understand that science (including yourselves) enough to debunk the baseless claim.
If you want to claim that TT is based on quantum physics: show me a connection, ANY connection stronger than a WAG (wild-a**** guess).
You've made my point, but your view is so TT-centric that you can't see the overall relevance of your statement.
So, riddle me this: Why do you think that TT should be elevated as a 'superior' faith (err, 'gift') in nursing over MY BELIEFS?
Don't you see that if nursing incorporates ANY faith-based belief system into its core body of knowledge, the effect of doing so is the very incorporation of the arrogant elitism that you assert above?
~faith,
Timothy.
You're bouncing around so much and putting words where they don't belong that it hard to follow you. I don't even do TT. Any "belief" you have is superior to anyone else's. You still don't comment about any research which shows effects greater than placebo. They are out there. So, are you suffering from "arrogant elitism?" Are you current with the sciences..."everything is energy?" You're walking in one world saying that's all there is while I'm walking in both worlds saying there is more than what you know.
You and Trauma refuse to look at any studies which have been posted previously about energy based modalities. These studies exist and they are based on real science. Refusing to even look at these studies flys in the face of rational thinking.
Well, you know it's difficult to look at studies which go against your beliefs.
You're bouncing around so much and putting words where they don't belong that it hard to follow you. I don't even do TT. Any "belief" you have is superior to anyone else's. You still don't comment about any research which shows effects greater than placebo. They are out there. So, are you suffering from "arrogant elitism?" Are you current with the sciences..."everything is energy?" You're walking in one world saying that's all there is while I'm walking in both worlds saying there is more than what you know.
I don't see how I'm 'bouncing around'.
Look, from the moment I started posting in this thread, I made mention of the fact that I BELIEVE in the 'energy fields' you discuss. I just believe that the APPROPRIATE way to access that part of our beings is through prayer.
Yet, BECAUSE YOU ARE DISMISSIVE of my viewpoint (not dismissive of prayer, but of my anti-TT viewpoint), you make the claim that YOU WALK IN BOTH WORLDS; but I don't.
That is the arrogant elitism to which I refer. I don't dismiss your understanding of 'everything is energy'. I just claim that I have every right to MY understanding -- without having to compromise my understanding of nursing to be true to myself. To attempt to incorporate TT into nursing's body of knowledge is arrogant elitism BECAUSE IT IS EXCLUSIVE OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF "BOTH WORLDS". ---- So much so, that even though you know from my postings that I have my OWN take on the spritual/energy makeup of our bodies - you still make the claim that only YOU have the secret knowledge to walk in 'both worlds'.
If nursing chooses to incorporate into its body of knowledge understandings BASED on faith (and TT applies to THAT category; not science), then nursing's body of knowledge will be reduced to mere opinions. And that makes it useless as a practical application.
I think science is good but please do not be fooled into beliveing that the Pharmaceutical companies are out for the best of the patient. They are out to make a buck!
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:
She also had her son come one day and lead the class in doing Tai Chi, which I refused due to my beliefs (it is Taoism, I am not a Taoist, therefore I don't do it). I don't discount the exercise and calming element of tai chi, but I don't like the religious aspect of it.
So...you're admitting to religious intolerance?
Although I hold black belts in two martial arts, I only practice taiji now. I do love being at peace and "oneness" while I throw people around. And those eye strikes, neck breaks and throws...I feel so spiritual, LOL!.
Here's the bottom line: practitioners of TT want the CREDIBILITY of science based research without being bothered by the methodology that CREATED that credibility in the first place.
And so, it attacks science from both fronts: claiming it IS accepted science knowing full well that such acceptance is NOT general in nature. Then, on the other front, attacking the credibility of the science community as a whole for failing to accept IT.
"It must never be forgotten that all the scientific method can ever do is to disprove various hypothesis using the experimental method and then construct the most plausible theories from these observations. Unfortunately, modern science has all too often been held hostage to political, philosophical, or economic interests leading to what might be called scientism rather than true science. Many of the true breakthroughs in science have been made by questioning minds that thrive on anomalous observations and derive novel insights from them." ...Karl Maret, MD
Here's the problem: accepting faith for faith is one thing; accepting faith for science is another thing entirely. And it doesn't matter how much you gush about 'quantum physics'; that doesn't make an entirely different concept (TT)science. You simply used a little known and difficult to understand component of science to make a baseless claim in the hopes that few understand that science (including yourselves) enough to debunk the baseless claim.
If you want to claim that TT is based on quantum physics: show me a connection, ANY connection stronger than a WAG (wild-a**** guess).
These physicists might help you (in regards to energy based modalities...of which TT is a part):
Fred Alan Wolf "The Eagle's Quest: A physicist finds scientific truth at the heart of the shamanic world"
Peter Russell "From Science to God: A physicist's journey into the mystery of consciousness"
Amit Goswami "The Quantum Doctor: a physicist's guide to health and healing"
Fritjof Capra "Uncommon Wisdon: Conversations with remarkable people" (Plus his other books)
James Oschman "Energy Medicine: The scientific basis" and "Energy medicine in therapeutics and human performance"
and "Vibrational Medicine" by Richard Gerber, MD
And every person in health care should read "The lost art of healing" by Bernard Lown, MD
How about these also: "Meaning, medicine and the placebo effect" by Daniel Moerman
"Understanding the placebo effect in complementary medicine" David Peters
I also wonder if "five year survival rate" is an oxymoron. Shouldn't it be "five year death rate" since the treatment failed and the patient died?
Look, from the moment I started posting in this thread, I made mention of the fact that I BELIEVE in the 'energy fields' you discuss. I just believe that the APPROPRIATE way to access that part of our beings is through prayer.
Yet, BECAUSE YOU ARE DISMISSIVE of my viewpoint (not dismissive of prayer, but of my anti-TT viewpoint), you make the claim that YOU WALK IN BOTH WORLDS; but I don't.
That is the arrogant elitism to which I refer. I don't dismiss your understanding of 'everything is energy'. I just claim that I have every right to MY understanding -- without having to compromise my understanding of nursing to be true to myself. To attempt to incorporate TT into nursing's body of knowledge is arrogant elitism BECAUSE IT IS EXCLUSIVE OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF "BOTH WORLDS". ---- So much so, that even though you know from my postings that I have my OWN take on the spritual/energy makeup of our bodies - you still make the claim that only YOU have the secret knowledge to walk in 'both worlds'.
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.
For the sake of facilitating the discussion, how about a link/citation to one or two of them?
Thanks for saying "one or two!"
Winstead-Fry P, Kijek J. An integrative review and meta-analysis of therapeutic touch literature. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 1999;5(6):58-67.
Ireland M. Theraupetic Touch with HIV-infected children: a pilot study. Journal of the Association of Nursing in AIDS Care. 1998;9(4):68.
Lin Y, Taylor AG. Effects of Theraupetic touch in reducing pain and anxiety in an elderly population. Integrative Medicine. 1998;1(4)155-162.
Leskowitz ED. Phantom limb pain treated with therapeutic touch: a case report. Arch Phy Med Rehab. 2000;81:552-524.
Gordon A, Merenstein JH, D'Amico F, Hudgen D. The effects of therapeutic touch on patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. The Journal of Family Practice. 1998;47(4):271-276.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
You guys make it sound like the smallpox and polio vaccines worked just because people had 'faith' in the placebo of such treatments.
1952 Peak Polio 'paralytic' cases in the U.S. - 21,000.
1954: introduction and widespread use of IPV (Polio Vaccine) = yearly rapid decline of 'paralytic' cases from 1955 - 1979, when polio was 'eradicated' in the U.S.
All the years 1979-2006 - 0 cases.
(Paralytic outcomes averaged 1:200 infections. So, 21,000 paralytic outcomes equates to 4,200,000 infections in 1952 down to ZERO known cases in 1979).
Source CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/polio.pdf
What a great placebo that vaccine was, eh? Need I quote statistics on the effects of the vaccine 'placebos' on smallpox?
I guess the anti-retroviruses that have plummeted AIDS deaths (where they are used) are 'placebos' that AIDS infected people needed to overcome the 'energy/spiritual' cause of their disease? If this is the case: QUICK! we need to get millions of 'penny per dose' sugar pills to Africa as a (wink wink) campaign to bring anti-retroviruses there.
"Accumulating data from clinical and pathogenesis studies continue to support early institution of potent antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection" - JAMA
July 1, JAMA. 1998;280:78-86 © AMA 1998
I guess the consistent studies that show that an ACEI plus B-Blocker reduces risk of subsequent heart attack by half is just a PR campaign to get Americans hooked on useless drugs. . .
http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/629ED5D5-FB71-4F7B-9DFD-F6BBF1AD71DD/0/ACEIARBContraindicationFactSheet051605.pdf
http://www.jointcommission.org/NR/rdonlyres/AB92B013-B9A7-48AC-8AC6-759410D6E791/0/COMMITBetaBlockerFACTSheet.pdf
Multiple articles from peer-reviewed medical journals (JAMA, Lancet) for each fact sheet.
Or that it's a documented fact that the five yr survival rate after dx w/ certain cancers have improved ONE THOUSAND PERCENT over the last 50 yrs is a carefully orchestrated lie.
Overall 5yr Cancer Survival Rates: 1963 Whites 39%, Blacks 27% ;; 1996-2002 Whites 67.5% Blacks 57.2%
NIH: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/results_merged/topic_survival.pdf
Same for the fact that the rate of death by childbirth since 1900 has dropped so far as to be negligble.
"At the beginning of the century, maternal death rates were around their historical level of nearly 1 in 100 for live births. The number today in the United States is 1 in 10,000, a 99% decline." - WHO
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/index.html
~faith,
Timothy.