PDA

View Full Version : The Reiki "debate"



Steve Williams
21st March 2003, 10:40
Hi everyone

As someone who does not have any real issue about Reiki (I don't think it exists, but I don't think god exists either, although I will accept that some people believe it, and if they do not harm/con others then "live and let live" everyone has an opinion, that is what makes us unique).
I thought I would bring a little perspective.


Tony and his group, will not believe Reiki unless Jim and his camp "take the test", "take the test" take the test"..... (sounds like a stuck record ;) )

Jim and his camp will not "take the test", due to money/time/fear/who can tell??....



I would suggest that Tony have Reiki done on him, then he will know if it works on him or not.....

Jim fills in the application, and sees what transpires from that (filling in and sending the application does not mean that you have to go any further than that).....


At least it would be a start......

If Tony says "it was done on me, it is cr@p and didn't work", then Jim takes the test, If Tony says "WOW, it really worked for me" then no need.

Rather than the "bickering" that we have now.

Gene Williams
21st March 2003, 12:11
Thank you Steve! I felt like the reiki thread was a dying horse that someone finally, mercifully, put out of its misery. It was fun for a while, though:D Gene

bruceb
21st March 2003, 13:22
Well, there are a number of studies that have been done as to how environment, attitude, and interaction actually encourage healing. If the percentage of people who experience positive effects heal quicker, or get better on an average that is measurably greater than those who have bad attitude, poor environment to enhance healing, and poor interaction, how would one justify people who live over those who die?

Reiki, would seem to be a form of healing using interaction of human beings who generate energy to encourage other human beings to heal themselves, but how much of it is measurable within the science of todays scientific instruements?

I am starting to wonder is Tony Kehoe is a one of the experts who will be paid to debunk or prove a phenonmenon in this great one million dollar challenge? The fact is, Randi is an opportunist, a fair magician, but still an opportunist who has found a nitche and a means to make money without doing any physical labor. This entire one million dollar challenge is not in search of truth, but in search of publicity simply because there is not an observation of the phenonmena to see if it even qualifys for the one Million dollar prize.

The fact that the application expressly implys that the presenter will be responsible for all fees and experts brought to examine said phenonmenon, indicates a scam to create a business that keeps people on retainer, or pay exorbatant fees that keep this challenge in business as a lucritive business, not as a fund, or a prize.

Oh well. Nice Try Tony.

I guess you will have to examine the phenonmenon for yourself, for free, and use that genius brain you tout to make your own decisions ... which seem to be theatrical, and obtuse in order to have people argue with you as you laugh you butt off at the responses you have induced though insults and idiotcy.

The fact that the human body heals itself is a miracle, and if we can understand the methods that speed up that process, or enhance that process, be it western medicine or eastern methods including reiki, are but assistants to the that process and not the means of that process.

If the true vision of this is that a kiss on the forehead, holding someones hand when they are sick, or talking in a soft voice helps them as much someone who is attempting to activate the healing factors of the human body with heat or energy from their hands ... if it helps ... what harm could there be?

The true healer observes, records, and learns from activators that enhance the healing processes of the human body. If this is another method that has some benefit, and one puts it into the proper perspective for the human bodys healing processes, then use it when it is appropriate.

If, on the other hand, one ignores the other means of healing that are more effective, and should be used first or as a priority to reiki, then I must fall upon the other side of the debate as to narrowmindedness of strickly calling reiki the only form of healing. Reiki is a piece of healing process, and should not be any more or less important than the western medicine which also has great benefits.

This debate is stupid because it stretches the truth beyond what is the real application, and tries to make black and white a subject that is not understood fully, the integration of western and eastern methods to heal the human body.

Randall Sexton
22nd March 2003, 05:40
Very good, Bruce.

JimGould
22nd March 2003, 07:17
It is quite clear that steve is tonys mate and the only reason why the other threads were closed is because of my post using TONYS WORDS

He shot himself in the foot and steve is clearing his mess up... Steve? We do not fear a test we fear stupidity. I will waste no more time here.

MarkF
22nd March 2003, 08:50
Jim,
If Steve or anyone else wouldn't have closed those threads, I, or another mod would have, and Tony's not my mate (though practicing a profession of which double blinds are a dime a dozen, I'd probably be agreeing with Tony, while complaining that many double blinds today are con jobs perpetrated on the public by the drug companies). I do consider Steve a friend, but I don't have to agree with him just because. Keep up the Reiki. If you feel better than what's the difference? I still do bio-feedback exercises I learned in the mid-seventies to help me sleep.

Also, that wasn't fair. He opened this thread to debate the issue on the other threads so how is it that he did anything "for his mate?" He did it for E-budo and is why he makes the big bobs.

The threads were so off the original topics that the only reason they weren't closed before is that there is no current moderator of this forum. He stepped up and did an unpopular job.

I disagree with Steve, and agree with Tony (I think it was Tony who made the point) that Reiki exists, but results are lacking, at least scientific results. I know medical doctors who share quarters (and a practice) with chiropractics. That doesn't make chiropractics any more scientific than they are, it is an admission that for certain chronic maladies, laying hands on does bring relief from some kinds of injuries. So does massage. Doctors regularly prescribe traction to patients with proven back injuries (as opposed to those who simply say "My back hurts"), massage, and ultra-sound treatments even though it is so close to practicing chiropractic that the only difference is that the doctors are not the ones laying hands on (and you wonder why doctors don't wash their hands). Most orthopaedists believe in traction and make the same, basic claim as chiropractors, that it does align the spine (the medical doctor would explain it differently, but when all is said and done they are both talking out of a collective mouth).

As far as God and religion are concerned, George Carlin's recently reworked three commandments include this one: "Keep thy religion to thyself" which is what I think Steve was basically saying and with that, I do agree.

BTW: To Ms or Mr. Woo Woo, that is your real name, right? That's good 'cause you have to sign your posts with your real name or use it as the user name. BTW: I'm open to alternative treatments than medicine (don't let the fact I'm a pharmacist/chemist fool you). Not all medicine/science works, either. This is why I don't work in the retail sector, I send too many clients down the street to the health store.


Mark

Kimpatsu
22nd March 2003, 12:59
Thank you, Steve, for starting the fight all over again.
I'm not going to have Reiki done on me, for the same reason I don't drink snake oil; I'd rather see a real doctor.
You say that although you don't believe in Reiki or god yourself, "you accept that there are others who do". Well, so what? Reiki woo-woos can believe their pseudoscience all they like; it doesn't make their psuedoscience any more real. There is $1 million on offer, and all they do is make excuses.
I am, however, attempting to find a Reikiya here who will take the test. Then, Sue Woo-woo will be honour-bound to apply to JREF, too. That will be fun. For Reiki to work, our current understanding of the universe has to be false. Just think: Sue and Jim Gould would win Nobel prizes!
Don't sit on the fence; actively involve yourself in fighting this quackery.

Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the ($1 million) reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe. Why don't the television editors insist on some equivalently rigorous test? Could it be that they believe the alleged paranormal powers would evaporate and bang go the ratings? ---Richard Dawkins

Steve Williams
22nd March 2003, 23:25
Thanks to Mark...... :cool:

To Jim, grow up...... this is not about who is someones "mate" it is about a proper debate and conversation, not about "schoolyard arguing", if you saw that then the other threads would not have gone around in circles so much.
Re-read what MarkF said especially in the paragraph where he starts by disagreeing with me :eek:

To Tony, I did not "start the fight again", my purpose was to stop the fight and start a "Dialogue"
And I can accept that many people believe in many things that I do not.... as long as they do not try to foster their beliefs onto those who are unwilling/unable to accept them then I have no problem with that.... they can sit in their little rooms "reiking (sp?) themselves to death for all I care.


BTW in this debate the fence is probably the safest place to sit ;)


Just stop debating why I closed the other threads, and debate the question in hand.

Strange to see that the most sensible post on this thread is from Bruceb....... :eek: ;) :)

JimGould
23rd March 2003, 00:07
To Jim, grow up...... this is not about who is someones "mate" it is about a proper debate and conversation

The thread was about Reiki for people who believed in Reiki and wanted info on Reiki... You as a mod had an obligation to :

a) not let it be hijacked
b) not let fellow posters be liabled (yes the law still works on the internet)
c) not let fellow posters be threatened with physical harm by other members

You failed in all of the above.

I would say that apart from 5 other people I have been on Ebudo the longest (I was memeber no.6 on the very first Ebudo board) as I have watched this board degenerate from an adult debating and information board to a teenages flame and attack play house. Maybe the bigger picture needs looking at here.

I dont really like Judo and I think its become far less attractive as a sport and martial arts over the last 20 years but I dont go to the Judo section and attack them. I have no right to do this as I dont do Judo. Maybe posters should stick to talking about what they know about.
Lets look at Eddie. Yes hes been a funny chap over the time here and I can see why some people post anti Eddie stuff but when he does ask a simple straight fwd question does he get an answer? No he gets shot to pieces for being Eddie. How will people get educated if they are always put down and made to look stupid and worthless? As a Mod I would have stopped the treatment of Eddie and just allowed his genuine questions to be answered.

It's so easy to knock people over the Internet and to say 'I'm far more intelligent, harder, stronger, faster than you' but does anyone every ask about the person they are dealing with first? Not a chance in hell here.

One poster for instance used the term or something like 'far more travelled' than someone else. Maybe he is maybe he aint but he didn't bother to find out.

I would love for Ebudo to return to what it was when I joined it and I think 99% of the other serious posters here would too. Maybe some would even come back.

JimGould
23rd March 2003, 00:12
William Gladstone (I think) once said:

'I do not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to my death to defend your right to say it'

bruceb
23rd March 2003, 00:22
I am sorry to shatter my image of being off to the left by being sensible .....

Could it be .... we are striking a middleground of sensibility for discussion, finally?

I would hope there is some sensibility.

Maybe ... because I am advanced into my particular pain and disability that I must ... yes, I believe I have reached that stage of research ... must investigate eastern as well as western means of relieve pain and induce healing that puts reiki in its place? ... but... that should be the goal of each of us, to search out the real effectiveness of what might sound strange, apply it to what we know, and extrapolate if these methods will help or hurt us as we integrate them into our regimen.

I would hope ... that this approach would be used for everything .... but please ... use common sense? It is your health, and life is too damn short to screw it up with stupidity.

On the other hand, we are returning to some of the motivators for Ki ....

Could it be that in reiki the motavators that allow one to induce healing also induce insanity, delusions, or separate one from reality ... and thus both the healer and patient lose sight of reality ... at times?

That might be an interesting discussion ... what do people think to key the thoughts that activate healing, or encourage people to have the feeling that they are better, relieved of pain, and feel they are healing where western medicine doesn't give them that feeling? Let's hear some of the inside thoughts of both healer, and patient.

How about some of that to see if this, reiki, is indeed a variation of generating signals between human beings as another form of KI?

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 00:26
Originally posted by JimGould
William Gladstone (I think) once said:

'I do not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to my death to defend your right to say it'
It was Voltaire.

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 00:32
Originally posted by JimGould
a) not let it be hijacked
Anybody can contribute to the thread, even if you don't like what they say. Ergo, the thread was not hijacked.

Originally posted by JimGould
b) not let fellow posters be liabled (yes the law still works on the internet)
Show me one case of libel (not the spelling) thus far. In fact, great, let's go to court. Then you'd have to prove your claims. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) That would be fun. No prevarication, you see.

Originally posted by JimGould
c) not let fellow posters be threatened with physical harm by other members
That counts you out then, doesn't it. Hoist by your own petard.

Originally posted by JimGould
You failed in all of the above.
You're just bitter because Steve won't side with you and your nonsense. Now, take the test. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

JimGould
23rd March 2003, 00:39
You see how Tony only takes the parts of a thread that he thinks he can gloss over and disregards the rest. He hope others havn't read the threads properly of have forgotten what he wrote. He looks things up on the internet to appear clever ;)

Steve Williams
23rd March 2003, 00:50
OK, a few answers for JIm......


Yes you are right, as a mod I have certain "obligations"...... but don't forget that I do it in my own time, and do not sit at a pc at work. So I log-on "most" evenings, and being in the UK it can be 50+ hours of posting time in the US and/or Japan before I get to read a thread... a lot can happen in a couple of days of posting.

As for "hijacking" this is an "open forum" and as such anyone who is a member can post.

Not going to go into the libel statement, but you gave as good as you got.

Hmmm physical harm..... what if I said that Tony is a 76 year old nun? OK he isn't but do you really know who you are speaking/typing to? My point being that what you percieve as a threat may be friendly banter to him....



As for the "failed all the above"..... I can say that W.Kent Bergstrum was the moderator of this forum when the threads were started (he even posted on one of the threads), and it is only in the last few days that some of the other moderators have been given greater/more moderator powers.... myself included, until that time I could only moderate stuff in bad/baffling budo, nowhere else.


I was also here in the original e-budo incarnation...... not as early as member number 6, but early...... so I have seen e-budo change also, but most is a change for the better.

Steve Williams
23rd March 2003, 00:57
Oh and Tony..... I don't think he will ever take the test, so please stop asking.

Try a different line of question/debate...


So now again to Tony and Jim, debate the question/thread in hand, not the reasons why the other thread was closed, or my relationship with other members. Or whether I "did my duty as a mod", it is all irrelevant, so get over it.....

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 01:00
Originally posted by JimGould
You see how Tony only takes the parts of a thread that he thinks he can gloss over and disregards the rest. He hope others havn't read the threads properly of have forgotten what he wrote. He looks things up on the internet to appear clever ;)
Splendid ad hominem, Jim, but what have I "glossed over"? I've taken care to respond to every line of your post. On, BTW, I AM clever; remember, I'm the skeptic here; you're the woo-woo. :cool:

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 01:06
Originally posted by Steve Williams
Oh and Tony..... I don't think he will ever take the test, so please stop asking.
Can't do that, as testing under laboratory conditions is the only way to verify or refute his claims. The very fact that he keeps dodging the issue is telling, however.

Originally posted by Steve Williams
Try a different line of question/debate...
Such as? Gould won't offer any credible explanation as to his claimed super powers, uses the "No True Scotman" logical fallacy when confronted with quotes from other Reikiya even more out there than his outlandish pseudoscience, and won't agree to be tested. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) What else is there?

Originally posted by Steve Williams
So now again to Tony and Jim, debate the question/thread in hand,
OK. Jim: Of what is this human aura composed? I mean, which of the four fundamental forces does it employ? (That's question one, in what may prove to be an ongoing series.)
(Bet I don't get an answer, though.)

JimGould
23rd March 2003, 01:08
My point being that what you percieve as a threat may be friendly banter to him. Oh I am sorry, I should have explained. I don't see Tony as any possible threat perdiod ;) (it does worry me that as a master martial artist he only trains on 'random sundays' LOL

Thanks Steve you are doing a great job with the tools provided to you :)

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 01:11
Originally posted by JimGould
Oh I am sorry, I should have explained. I don't see Tony as any possible threat perdiod ;)
More fool you.

Originally posted by JimGould
(it does worry me that as a master martial artist he only trains on 'random sundays'
"Random Sundays"? Whatever do you mean?
Please answer the above question regarding the four fundamental forces as well.
TIA,

JimGould
23rd March 2003, 01:21
Tony, I am just a simple man. I drive a spots car (in the super car catagory :D ) but I don't claim to understand how that works either ;)

Your point blank refusal to try Reiki says much more than me not wanting to spend a small fortune on proving something I already know.

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 01:30
Originally posted by JimGould
Tony, I am just a simple man.
Finally, we agree on something.

Originally posted by JimGould
I drive a spots car (in the super car catagory :D ) but I don't claim to understand how that works either ;)
The difference is that you're not claiming to be a car mechanic. If you claim to be a healer, you must understand how the healing process works. This is yet another typical woo-woo analogy.

Originally posted by JimGould
Your point blank refusal to try Reiki says much more than me not wanting to spend a small fortune on proving something I already know.
I'm not refusing to "try" reiki; as soon as I can find a willing participant here, I'll test it to the max. As I promised, I'll keep all on these boards appraised. Your excuses for refusing to be tested are tiresome. What expense? Travel to the nearest participating university. (You can go in that fancy sports car of yours, although its possession does damage your claims to be uninterested in material things.) Then when you win $1 million, you're still quids in. Now, take the test. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)
Oh, and what did you mean by "random Sundays"?

JimGould
23rd March 2003, 05:58
I'm not refusing to "try" reiki; as soon as I can find a willing participant here, I'll test it to the max Okay lets break this down into words of 1 syllable or less so that after all this time Tony's super huge brain eventually might understand :rolleyes:

No testy , You go, You do.

Understand yet? shesh

bruceb
23rd March 2003, 12:56
How about a few more people jump in, Eh?

I agree with Jim.

Tony needs to get a new hobby, or at least, get out of that chair and go do some more hands on research. Every single strange phenonmenon is subject to his interpretation of what a clinical test is, or the one million dollar Randi challenge? What's up with that?

As of yet, there is no great Reiki debate.

If no one wishes to talk about the activators, or speak of their personal experience, then this great debate is just a chat room where one or two people are getting out a dose of daily frustration, or daily practice of emotional manipulation, and this thread is dead.

Is there anyone else, besides Jim or Tony, without Steve jumping in, who have something to add or enlighten the readers on this subject?

Myself, being a western medicine fan, I take all these somewhat dubious methods of healing in stride with same emphasis as rest and lots of chicken soup, a kiss on the head. I tend to see the human body as the main healer, with a few little helpers from medicine, a persons attitude, and lots of rest.

If this discussion is about rest and chicken soup being more effective than Reiki, than say so .... and let the thread die.

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 13:44
Originally posted by JimGould
Okay lets break this down into words of 1 syllable or less so that after all this time Tony's super huge brain eventually might understand :rolleyes:

No testy , You go, You do.

Understand yet? shesh
No, no unnerstan'. Why you refuse impartial test? You scared? Yes. Science too much, you no know why you have to do test.
Coward. :rolleyes:

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 13:53
Originally posted by bruceb
How about a few more people jump in, Eh?
No need. One skeptic can handle all you woo-woos on my own.

Originally posted by bruceb
I agree with Jim.
Of course you do; you're as stupid as he is.

Originally posted by bruceb
Tony needs to get a new hobby, or at least, get out of that chair and go do some more hands on research.
I research every day of my life; it's my job. What's yours? Serving burgers with fries?

Originally posted by bruceb
Every single strange phenonmenon is subject to his interpretation of what a clinical test is, or the one million dollar Randi challenge? What's up with that?
It's called science, moron.

Originally posted by bruceb
As of yet, there is no great Reiki debate.
No, just the great woo-woo debate.

Originally posted by bruceb
If no one wishes to talk about the activators, or speak of their personal experience, then this great debate is just a chat room where one or two people are getting out a dose of daily frustration, or daily practice of emotional manipulation, and this thread is dead.
Talking of experience is meaningless also. You clearly don't understand the concept of impartial double-blind testing. Why am I not surprised?

Originally posted by bruceb
Myself, being a western medicine fan, I take all these somewhat dubious methods of healing in stride with same emphasis as rest and lots of chicken soup, a kiss on the head. I tend to see the human body as the main healer, with a few little helpers from medicine, a persons attitude, and lots of rest.
Yeah, the human body doesn't need any help to heal TB or gangrene or myopia or... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by bruceb
If this discussion is about rest and chicken soup being more effective than Reiki, than say so .... and let the thread die.
Bruce wants to let die any thread he cannot dominate... Which is all of them! Wow!
The fact is, the Reiki woo-woos can't do what they claim, which is why they can't claim the $1 million. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) They're all cowards, running scared from science. My job is to make sure everybody knows it.

joe yang
23rd March 2003, 17:40
Just for your information, in Re Tar Do© we practise E-Reiki. Sitting here at my computer, I can stimulate various meridians, just by typing or keying in the appropriate portions of your anatomy. I can stroke you with my key board. All you need do is place your hand on the monitor.

Randall Sexton
23rd March 2003, 18:05
Tony, you still haven't answered my question about your occupation as a scientist. I thought you were a translator. Which is it? What are your degrees? And where is your Ph.D. from?

Gene Williams
23rd March 2003, 18:39
Tony Kehoe, late of the Planet Zort, has graduate degrees from Zort U. in "Debutante Management", "Logarithmic Argument", "Quantum Word Management", "Intergalactic Hop and Barley Horticulture", and "Interplanetary Female Geography." I also understand he has training as a Midnight Gynecologist (M.G.). We may ridicule him all we like, he is still correct in the Reiki debate.:D
Signed,
Dean of Academic Affairs
Zortrian University
Umfgalo Znord, Ph.D, M.G., A.S.S.

JimGould
23rd March 2003, 20:07
Tony has not answered any questions in any of the 3 threads (4 now) he has hijacked (and these are just the Reiki ones) and we all know why.
He's a fool, a coward, yella thru and thru and only a part time martial artist ;)and a translator (that's someone who copies other peoples work cos hes too stupid to do his own).

I wanted to know what the new Dark Chocolate Flake was like the other day so you know what I did? No Tony, I didn't get 200 people to try it for me and tell me what they thought. I went and bought one and ate it myself. Very nice it was too :D

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 22:35
Jim, I'm lost. What were these questions? I can't sort them from your drivel. Please list them here, for clarification.
BTW, you need to buy a better dictionary. Your definition of "hijacked" is different from everyone else's.
Randall, I'm a scientific translator. Not all scientists speak the same language, which is why I work on a team of Japanese and (mostly) American scientists as their go-between. See?
Now, back to the real issue ofthis thread: When are any of you Reikiya going to agree to be tested? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Gene Williams
23rd March 2003, 22:46
Jim, Can't you just admit that reiki isn't science? It can still work for some people on a suggestibility basis or on a placebo effect. I don't really believe there is anyone out there who passed college physics and biology that would accept reiki as science. Tony is really correct when he says that to claim scientific validity for reiki is claiming to alter our entire understanding of the universe. Surely you aren't that grandiose. What you are doing is more art than science and, in my opinion, falls under the rubric of "folk medicine", which may work for some, but wil not bear the scrutiny of scientific method. Gene

Kimpatsu
23rd March 2003, 22:50
In other words, Gene, it's a load of old rubbish.

Gene Williams
23rd March 2003, 22:53
Tony, I was trying to be diplomatic, which isn't easy for me and you're not helping...but, in a word, yes. Gene

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 01:01
And I thought it was Georgians like yourself who were plain speaking, darlin'. ;)

ErikH
24th March 2003, 01:04
The word rubbish is pretty much correct. After reading some books on reiki, reading "woo woo" claims of reiki being sent over cat-5 cable I think rubbish is perhaps a kind word. A lot of this stuff would go much better for them, if, they didn't try to explain it. Alas, someone tries and it comes off little better than a jolly fat man living on the north pole.

http://www.laughbreak.com/html/santa_clause__an_engineer_s_pe.html

Gene Williams
24th March 2003, 01:09
Why, Tony Suh, plain speakin' is only for Yankees and the hired help. Among Gentlemen like ourselves a nice glass of sippin' whiskey and a little desultory banter is a fine way to pass an evenin' on the plantation. Don't ya' love the rustle of them petticoats and all that sweet gigglin' driftin' down from the veranda. Why, Hell, I'd even go North for a Southern girl! Gene

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 01:11
Dont y'all mean a Southern gal?

Gene Williams
24th March 2003, 01:20
Suh, "girl" implies a more pristine, shall we say, unspoiled young woman; whereas, "gal" conveys a young woman of more coltish ways, playful in a word, and perhaps having some design about her play. Gene

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 01:36
Then I would have though a "gal" would be perfect for you, Gene. ;)

Gene Williams
24th March 2003, 01:53
Suh, are you impugning my honor? Are you suggestin' there would be anything other than the highest and most noble estimation of Southern female virtue beating within mah breast? Why, I am insulted, suh! In fact, I have not been so insulted since the DamnYankees rode through the town splattering mud from their horses' hooves onto the pure white bodice of mah young niece. Why, it muddied up mah best pair of gloves! Insulted Ah say! Gene

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 01:58
Are you calling me out to a duel, sir? I stand ready to defend myself with my psychic aura shield and my no-touch KO skills, which were taught to me by a hidden order of monks at a secret location in Tibet, a monastery high up in the Himalayas, where we fasted and meditated all day, sitting outside in the snow clad only in a loincloth, until enlightenment was bestowed upon us from On High (Noon).
Dare you tangle with such power? :cool:

Gene Williams
24th March 2003, 02:26
A duel, you say? Why, Suh, I'll have you know that duelin' is an honorable and highly esteemed tradition in the Old South. Mah' ancestor, Colonel Light Horse Montgomery, Esq., fightin' in the American Revolution, in a little known encounter near Cowpens South Carolina, once crossed pork swords with a well appointed young British officer. The outcome was left in doubt when a sudden charge from one of our gallant young "gals" a totin' a broom threatened to, "knock them piss hards right off yo' unnatural hides." Uncle Montgomery and the British soldier retreated in as honorable a manner as possible under what might be called tryin" circumstances. Gene

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 02:43
I trust that they retired to the nearest watering hole, hostelry, or other dispenser of fine ales, where they buried their differences in the time-honoured fashion of getting totally drunk with each other, becoming fine comrades, and singing bawdy songs off-key, much to the annoyance of the other patrons. :toast:

Gene Williams
24th March 2003, 02:48
Undoubtedly! Now,what was this thread about...oh yes, Ray Ki. Didn't he have a sister, Susie Ki? She used to hang out down at the natural foods store buying herbs and all kinds of incense and books on astral projection and stuff? Gene

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 02:53
Actually, Susie also has a cousin called Won, because of the nature of Ray Ki's cosmology. ;)

Gene Williams
24th March 2003, 03:22
Susie and Ray used to hang around with Jim Ghoul and Sue Woo Woo. I think they nicknamed Susie"Hand Job", doubtless because she did such great Shiatsu;) Anyway, the four of them used to sit around trying to have some kind of Tantric sex, but Jim's astral wouldn't project, and Sue's woo wouldn't woo, and Susie and Ray thought they said "get incest" instead of "get incense" and are now serving time. Have you seen that cute little one-eyed kid they had? I think he is with the carnival now. Gene

Randall Sexton
24th March 2003, 08:11
Tony:

Randall, I'm a scientific translator. Not all scientists speak the same language, which is why I work on a team of Japanese and (mostly) American scientists as their go-between. See?

Randy:

Yes, I see...you're a translator.

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 08:15
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Yes, I see...you're a translator.
Yes, one who has to be a scientist to do his job.

Randall Sexton
24th March 2003, 08:43
Tony:

Yes, one who has to be a scientist to do his job.

Randy:

Then clearly list your degrees that qualify you as a scientist as well as a translator. One does not have to be a Medical Doctor, for example (although it helps) to translate between doctors speaking different languages.

Kimpatsu
24th March 2003, 08:49
I have an MSc in cosmology, an MA in Japanese modern history and anthropology, and a BA in Japanese (language).
Happy? What are your qualifications?

Randall Sexton
24th March 2003, 19:04
Ok, thanks. I have a BSN (nursing), MSN (psychiatric nursing), MBA, and certificate in Zen Shiatsu (and Diplomate in Asian Bodywork).

Bob Steinkraus
24th March 2003, 21:21
Just to drag this thread back to the OP, I for one would not accept Reiki as valid even if it were performed on a previously skeptical subject, who then accepted it.

That is still anecdotal evidence, which is not good enough.

If you want me to believe that there is anything to the whole thing, it has be double-blinded, and the placebo effect accounted for. Get a hundred people together, divide them up randomly, do Reiki on one group and not on the other, and see if there are statistically significant differences in outcome.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 01:03
Thank you, Bob, for agreeing with what I've been suggesting all along. The pseudoscientists, however, refuse to be tested. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Gene Williams
25th March 2003, 01:31
I was always struck by what Carl Sagan, a popularizer of astronomy and physics albeit a scientist,said in, "The Demon Haunted World." He said, in so many words, that he truly wanted to find solid evidence of extraterrestrial life, and that he carefully studied all claims of UFO's, signs, signals, visitations, etc. and always concluded that the evidence was not sufficient. Then he said, "...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I would say that the claims of the reiki cadre are rather extraordinary. Maybe they should take the test twice at different universities and with different random groups.Gene

chrisdo14
25th March 2003, 04:41
i asked a while ago if you beleived that ki could b used in a self defense situation. ive heard it can be projected to "hit". although the fakes out there give a bad name to ki/chi if you do your proper research youll see that there are similaritties between the ki/chi of today and that of other miraculous ocurances throughout history

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 05:09
Miracles don't happen, and anecdotes aren't evidence. If hitting people with ki were really possible, we could document it and change our understanding of physics.

Sue Woo Woo
25th March 2003, 09:05
Yes the Woowoo is still in the house.

I appreciate the need for difference of opinion so rather than reacting may I offer an opinion
(Just my opinion whether that makes me a woo woo or not, I'm not particularly bothered)



If you want me to believe that there is anything to the whole thing, it has be double-blinded, and the placebo effect accounted for. Get a hundred people together, divide them up randomly, do Reiki on one group and not on the other, and see if there are statistically significant differences in outcome.

These is where this whole argument falls over through lack of understanding.
Yes to gain the results the scientists expect you have to do your double-blind testing but Reiki does not work like this.

Yes you could get 100 people together to be tested. Yes you can divide them up randomly, but how do you do Reiki on one group and not the other?
The group that did not receive Reiki treatments would know they didn't receive Reiki treatments. I cannot put my hands on a person and "pretend" to not do Reiki, it doesn't work that way.

.......statistically significant differences in outcome.

What are you measuring?
The outcome of what?
Are all people involved with the study group suffering from a certain ailment or are you just measuring how many people can "feel" the Reiki?
What are your expected differences?

I thought to have to placebo effect people needed to receive something yet I can't see how you can apply "fake Reiki"

I am interested in the answers to this.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 09:36
Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
These is where this whole argument falls over through lack of understanding.
Yes to gain the results the scientists expect you have to do your double-blind testing but Reiki does not work like this.
So you admit that reiki is not a science. Ergo, it cannot have any medical effect.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Yes you could get 100 people together to be tested. Yes you can divide them up randomly, but how do you do Reiki on one group and not the other?
Exactly as you say: you apply reiki to one group, and do nothing to the other.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
The group that did not receive Reiki treatments would know they didn't receive Reiki treatments. I cannot put my hands on a person and "pretend" to not do Reiki, it doesn't work that way.
Why not? You use your super powers on one group, and not on the other.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
.......statistically significant differences in outcome.
What are you measuring?
Medical improvements.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
The outcome of what?
The reiki treatment.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Are all people involved with the study group suffering from a certain ailment or are you just measuring how many people can "feel" the Reiki?
No, we'd take 100 people with a specific ailment that you claim you can cure, such as a broken bone, or the common cold.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
What are your expected differences?
Depends on what you're trying to cure.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I thought to have to placebo effect people needed to receive something yet I can't see how you can apply "fake Reiki"
The group you don't reiki is the placebo group.
Now, does this mean you're finally willing to be tested? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 10:45
Tony:

Thank you, Bob, for agreeing with what I've been suggesting all along. The pseudoscientists, however, refuse to be tested.

Randy:

I think several of us have agreed to be tested. However, I'm not doing it through a showman because of his # 3 rule. I can see him burying the results if they are not to his liking.

JimGould
25th March 2003, 10:53
I have re-read the threads and I can't see a single time where a person has said they wouldn't be tested (cept Tony). Tony's blinkers only allow him to see what he wants to see ;)

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 10:59
Looks like others (real scientists) are also looking at Reiki and Qigong:

REIKI STUDY: A study of Reiki to control pain in diabetic patients

Principal Investigator: Martin Stevens, MD
Co-Investigator: Elena Gillespie, BS

Painful chronic diabetic neuropathy often causes burning, tingling, and numbness of the feet and legs, which makes it difficult for people to enjoy many of their normal activities. Reiki (pronounced "Ray-key") is a relaxing, hands-on technique used in Japan for many years. During Reiki, the patient lies down fully clothed on a padded table while the practitioner places his or her hands in a sequential pattern on the patient's legs and feet. This relaxing method may reduce pain levels from neuropathy.

This study uses Reiki to determine whether chronic pain in diabetic neuropathy can be controlled, thereby increasing our patients' quality of life. In the initial visit, a physical assessment is performed to determine the current pain levels in the patient's legs and feet. The patient is then asked to return for a series of Reiki treatments performed by a trained practitioner. Patients are examined again post treatment.

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 11:04
Jim:

I have re-read the threads and I can't see a single time where a person has said they wouldn't be tested (cept Tony). Tony's blinkers only allow him to see what he wants to see .

Randy:

I find it amusing that Tony admitted that he couldn't discuss fishing as he had no experience in the subject, however, it seems that doesn't apply to Reiki!

Now, I don't particularly like Reiki as it's too boring for me. However, I'm open enough to know that things happened during several Reiki treatments that I can't get answers too.

Sue Woo Woo
25th March 2003, 11:07
Tony my level of frustration creeps up when You don't accept the words that you see on your screen but take the ones you like and apply the rest to suit yourself. Interpretation differences I guess.


So you admit that reiki is not a science

I dont believe I said this in the first place. However I do believe that the world of science is about discovering that which we at some point knew little or nothing about.




Why not? You use your super powers on one group, and not on the other

I do not have super powers, I can however channel the Reiki energy. I can't put my hands on someone that is ill and not have Reiki turn on. It is an automatic response thing.


No, we'd take 100 people with a specific ailment that you claim you can cure, such as a broken bone, or the common cold.

Again this is a case of you adding what you want to hear.
I never made any such claims. Never said once that I can heal anything. I have maintained my ability to do Reiki and that this ability seems to me to help people who are suffering from particular issues but I personally never said once that I claim to heal anything.
No one ever to my knowledge, has claimed that Reiki is an instant cure to anything. Yes they say it assists many things but I would like to see where anyone has said it's instantanious. The point is it helps some people and if those people are ill and trying to recover, then feeling better within themselves can only be a good thing. If the healing process is somewhat accelerated by the process of Reiki then hey that's pretty cool.

With this in mind, consider the following. If you want to measure the medical improvements correctly you have to allow many things into the equation. It's not simply a case of grabbing 100 people, splitting them up and reiking some of them.

Let's "suppose" for a minute that we could get around the "placebo Reiki thing" and be able to not apply Reiki to a group.

We would have to......
..find 100 people with the same medical condition.
..in the interest of correct science they would all have to be of a similar demographic i.e same sex, age group etc etc.
...They would all need to commit to very regular treatments and followups.
... this process could and quite possibly would cost a considerable amount of money. (please don't insult me with ohhhh but you will get a million for your trouble)

I personally cannot claim to offer "placebo Reiki" so I dont see how these testing methods will work.
One person alone cannot Reiki 50 people per day, every day for the length of time it would take to conclude this testing.

I only wish I did have the time and huge amounts of money to test Reiki to this degree. It might change several viewpoints on the subject.

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 11:10
The National Institutes of Health is at it again! Another Reiki study.

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Treatment, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control, Parallel Assignment, Safety/Efficacy Study

Further Study Details:
Fibromyalgia is one of the most common rheumatologic diagnoses. Treatment is generally unsatisfactory and most randomized, controlled treatment trials have been unable to demonstrate a sustained effective intervention. A vast body of anecdotal literature as well as two randomized controlled trials suggest that Reiki may be an effective treatment for FM, appearing to relieve pain and improve psychological well being. Reiki appears to have no adverse effects and can eventually be self-administered, making it a low-risk, low-cost, potentially patient-empowering intervention. This study will investigate the efficacy of Reiki in the treatment of FM.

One hundred Reiki-naive FM patients will be recruited from a chronic fatigue referral clinic and will participate in an 8-week trial. Patients will be randomized into one of two Reiki groups (direct-contact and distant Reiki) or one of two control groups (sham and placebo). Patients will receive either Reiki or placebo 16 times during the course of the study. Patients will be assessed at study entry, at Weeks 4 and 8, and 12 weeks post-treatment.

JimGould
25th March 2003, 11:11
I find it amusing that Tony admitted that he couldn't discuss fishing as he had no experience in the subject, however, it seems that doesn't apply to Reiki! Yes and he seems completely unable to have any lateral thoughts ;)

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 11:13
Oh, no! Not another one! Wonder if these guys know about the million bucks that Randi would like to donate?

Study Type: Interventional
Study Design: Treatment, Randomized, Open Label, Active Control, Factorial Assignment, Efficacy Study

Further Study Details:
This study will investigate the use of Reiki, an energy-based complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) intervention, as an approach to improve well being for patients with advanced AIDS, and evaluate its effects on dimensions of well being and quality of life. The study is a two-group comparison between participants receiving Reiki plus usual medical care (treatment) and participants receiving usual medical care only (control). One hundred and forty-six patients with advanced AIDS will be enrolled and randomized into the two groups. Patients in the intervention (Reiki) group will receive a total of three one-hour Reiki sessions over a period of 6 weeks. Participants in both the intervention and control groups will be assessed at two times during the study period using repeated measures. We will investigate and compare changes in participants' anxiety, depression, pain, quality of life, and spiritual well being at the end of the intervention period. This is the first part of a longer-term research agenda to examine the use and effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicines for patients with advanced disease. We plan to examine one clinical context in which Reiki is currently provided. It is important to design studies that respect both the context of care and the practitioner-client relationship-elements essential to an understanding of the philosophy and delivery of CAM such as Reiki, and at the same time endeavor to outline a systematic approach to the study of CAM.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:04
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I think several of us have agreed to be tested. However, I'm not doing it through a showman because of his # 3 rule. I can see him burying the results if they are not to his liking.
For the last bloody time, Randi doesn't do the testing. Scientists do that. Randi has NEVER buried any info; no one has ever passed a scientific test, however. How about this: we have you tested anyway, but without Randi's involvement, the $1 million (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) won't be on the table. Hell, I'll test you next time I'm in Hawaii, if that's all it takes. But what's the betting you find another excuse to dodge that, too?

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:06
Originally posted by JimGould
I have re-read the threads and I can't see a single time where a person has said they wouldn't be tested (cept Tony). Tony's blinkers only allow him to see what he wants to see ;)
What am I supposed to be tested about? You're the one making the claims; I haven't made any claims to test. There you go again, Jim, demonstrating your profound lack of understanding of science. I've also told you time and again that I'm willing to create test protocols for subjects here in Japan. I just need to find them. Do I take your post, however, to mean that you are now indeed prepared to be tested? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:09
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Looks like others (real scientists) are also looking at Reiki and Qigong:

REIKI STUDY: A study of Reiki to control pain in diabetic patients

Principal Investigator: Martin Stevens, MD
Co-Investigator: Elena Gillespie, BS

Painful chronic diabetic neuropathy often causes burning, tingling, and numbness of the feet and legs, which makes it difficult for people to enjoy many of their normal activities. Reiki (pronounced "Ray-key") is a relaxing, hands-on technique used in Japan for many years. During Reiki, the patient lies down fully clothed on a padded table while the practitioner places his or her hands in a sequential pattern on the patient's legs and feet. This relaxing method may reduce pain levels from neuropathy.

This study uses Reiki to determine whether chronic pain in diabetic neuropathy can be controlled, thereby increasing our patients' quality of life. In the initial visit, a physical assessment is performed to determine the current pain levels in the patient's legs and feet. The patient is then asked to return for a series of Reiki treatments performed by a trained practitioner. Patients are examined again post treatment.
And as I keep repeating, get me a copy of the results of this study, along with the protocol. Where are you getting this info from anyway? It needs to be properly peer-reviewed. If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, then they're breaking scientific protocol, and are highly suspect.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:11
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I find it amusing that Tony admitted that he couldn't discuss fishing as he had no experience in the subject, however, it seems that doesn't apply to Reiki!
Not true. I know a great deal about Reiki. It's woo-woo pseudoscience that doesn't work. The fact that you keep dodging being tested (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) is the most telling fact of this thread.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:13
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I'm open enough to know that things happened during several Reiki treatments that I can't get answers too.
That doesn't mean they're unanswerable. we just need to repeat your experiments and get the same results, so we can start analysing them.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:34
Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Tony my level of frustration creeps up when You don't accept the words that you see on your screen but take the ones you like and apply the rest to suit yourself. Interpretation differences I guess.
Not at all. I just took you at your word:

to gain the results the scientists expect you have to do your double-blind testing but Reiki does not work like this.
If the protocol cannot be double-blinded, it isn't a scientific test.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Again this is a case of you adding what you want to hear.
I never made any such claims.
Yes you did. It is the inevitable conclusion of your statement that Reiki cannot be tested scientifically.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Never said once that I can heal anything. I have maintained my ability to do Reiki and that this ability seems to me to help people who are suffering from particular issues but I personally never said once that I claim to heal anything.
So Reiki is NOT a medical protocol? Make up your mind; if you don't heal, what on earth DO you do?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
No one ever to my knowledge, has claimed that Reiki is an instant cure to anything. Yes they say it assists many things but I would like to see where anyone has said it's instantanious.
OK, fine; we can test cures over time against a control group not receiving any treatment. What chronic complaints DO you claim to cure?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
The point is it helps some people and if those people are ill and trying to recover, then feeling better within themselves can only be a good thing. If the healing process is somewhat accelerated by the process of Reiki then hey that's pretty cool.
And where is your evidence that Reiki DOES accelerate the healing process? Stats and double-blinded protocols only, please.
BTW, you've now contradicted yourself. Earlier you claimed that Reiki doesn't heal, and in this paragraph, you say it does. I don't understand what you mean by "feeling better within themselves", though. Are you saying that Reiki is just a placebo?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
With this in mind, consider the following. If you want to measure the medical improvements correctly you have to allow many things into the equation. It's not simply a case of grabbing 100 people, splitting them up and reiking some of them.
Yes it is, so long as the groups share common characteristics. That's how science is done.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Let's "suppose" for a minute that we could get around the "placebo Reiki thing" and be able to not apply Reiki to a group.
Yes, that part's easy. I can do it; it would be helpful to have JREF (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) involved though, because they can find the requisite number of people quickly.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
We would have to......
..find 100 people with the same medical condition.
Easy. Try a cancer ward.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
..in the interest of correct science they would all have to be of a similar demographic i.e same sex, age group etc etc.
Not quite, because gender would not necessarily be statistically significant. However, even that wouldn't be difficult, say in an AIDS or cancer unit.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
...They would all need to commit to very regular treatments and followups.
Why is this? Even so, it would not be difficult to have them come back for further treatment. How long would you say it takes, though? 1 month? 6 months? A year? Never?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
... this process could and quite possibly would cost a considerable amount of money. (please don't insult me with ohhhh but you will get a million for your trouble)
Why is that an insult? And why should it cost money? You will, of course, be volunteering your time for free. In addition to $1 million, (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) you will also win a Nobel prize. Why should $1 million be an insult? You are confident that your technique works, aren't you?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I personally cannot claim to offer "placebo Reiki" so I dont see how these testing methods will work.
You won't need to. You just do Reiki on 50 N-stage cancer patients for--what? 1 year?--and at the end of the year, we see how many are in remission, compared to a control group who received no such treatment. Piece of cake.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
One person alone cannot Reiki 50 people per day, every day for the length of time it would take to conclude this testing.
You don't have to treat 50 people in one day. You could do 10 a day over five days, or five a day over 10 days, recurring, if you prefer.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I only wish I did have the time and huge amounts of money to test Reiki to this degree.
Why not? We could even pare down to 20 patients, and a 20-person control group, and you could do 2 patients a day for 10 days, recurring. Where is the cost in time and money like that? (And remember, you're on for $1 million at the end of it; you'll soon recoup your money... if you can genuinely do as you claim.)

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
It might change several viewpoints on the subject.
Yes, like yours and your fellow woo-woos. You would be changing our entire understanding of science, and THAT really would be something worth discussing.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:37
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
The National Institutes of Health is at it again! Another Reiki study.
Yes, and what are the results? You're acting as if testing the claims is the same as proving them. The results aren't in yet. As a quick search of the web, I can't find a single clinical test of Reiki that proves it works. Why do you suppose that is?

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:39
Originally posted by JimGould
Yes and he seems completely unable to have any lateral thoughts
Unlike you, Jim, who has no thoughts at all. :cool:

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 14:42
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Oh, no! Not another one! Wonder if these guys know about the million bucks that Randi would like to donate?

You STILL don't get it, Randall. These are protocols for testing; they don't PROVE that Reiki works. And yes, if their clinical protocols hold up to peer review and their results are positive, then they will be eligible for the $1 million. I look forward to the results as well. As I said, I can't find a single example of testing that proves Reiki works. Where are the results?

Bob Steinkraus
25th March 2003, 17:32
Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo

These is where this whole argument falls over through lack of understanding.
Yes to gain the results the scientists expect you have to do your double-blind testing but Reiki does not work like this.

Yes you could get 100 people together to be tested. Yes you can divide them up randomly, but how do you do Reiki on one group and not the other?
The group that did not receive Reiki treatments would know they didn't receive Reiki treatments. I cannot put my hands on a person and "pretend" to not do Reiki, it doesn't work that way.
You can't, but someone else can, rather easily.

Get someone who cannot do Reiki. Have them duplicate the movements on the patients, but not extend their "ki" or whatever the mysterious energy is supposed to be. As long as the patients do not know what Reiki is supposed to look like, they will not be able to tell that they are not receiving Reiki.

If Reiki really involves the transfer of some mysterious energy, then the Reiki-receiving group should experience some benefit that the placebo group does not. And if they don't, that is evidence that there is nothing to Reiki - that it is only placebo.


Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo

.......statistically significant differences in outcome.

What are you measuring?
The outcome of what?
Are all people involved with the study group suffering from a certain ailment or are you just measuring how many people can "feel" the Reiki?
What are your expected differences?

I thought to have to placebo effect people needed to receive something yet I can't see how you can apply "fake Reiki"

I am interested in the answers to this. You have to get the Reiki exponents to define ahead of time what is supposed to happen if Reiki is done "right". Make sure it is measurable, and you have eliminated one of the most common dodges in medical fraud - the tendency of woo-woo practitioners to define any perceived improvement in a "patient" as due to the treatment.

If Reiki practitioners have no idea beforehand what will happen to their patients, I wonder that they do it at all. If they have no reason to believe that Reiki helps anything, they are frauds by definition. If they do expect it to help, have them list the helpful things that might happen. Then measure if there is any difference in occurance of the helpful things between the group receiving "real" Reiki, and the placebo group.

It seems that Reiki is used mostly for pain relief. This would make sense, if Reiki had no more than a placebo effect, since pain is a phenomenon often susceptible to auto-suggestion. This can be tested.

You split up a bunch of arthritis patients (or patients suffering some other kind of intractable, chronicly painful condition) into two groups. Make sure both groups are Reiki-naive, so neither can tell which is the "real" Reiki treatment and which is "fake". Then have all the patients rank their pain levels (one scale often used is from 1 to 9, expressing the pain level in "dols", a word derived from dolor, the Latin word for "pain"). Track this over time, and you should be able to tell if Reiki patients rank their pain levels lower than those receiving only placebo treatment.

Many Reiki practitioners claim to be able to "feel" a patient's energy, and heal them by manipulating this energy. This kind of claim can be tested by determining if the Reiki practitioner can actually detect the energy fields allegedly emanating from the human body. There is a rather famous experiment, documented here, (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/tt.html) where it was demonstrated that "therapeutic touch" practitioners (which is similar to Reiki in theory and in its claims of healing) did no better than random chance in detecting whether a human hand was near them or not.

There are lots of areas of knowledge where the scientific method is not applicable, but Reiki and other forms of "healing" can and should be tested. If it really had some beneficial effect, I wonder why its exponents resist testing so strongly.

OK, I lied, I don't wonder. I am pretty sure I know why.

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 20:18
Tony:

For the last bloody time, Randi doesn't do the testing. Scientists do that. Randi has NEVER buried any info; no one has ever passed a scientific test, however. How about this: we have you tested anyway, but without Randi's involvement, the $1 million won't be on the table. Hell, I'll test you next time I'm in Hawaii, if that's all it takes. But what's the betting you find another excuse to dodge that, too?

Randy:

I'm aware Randi doesn't do the testing. I can read. Can you read Randi's rule # 3?

3. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.

I'll be here when you arrive.

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 20:22
Tony:

And as I keep repeating, get me a copy of the results of this study, along with the protocol. Where are you getting this info from anyway? It needs to be properly peer-reviewed. If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, then they're breaking scientific protocol, and are highly suspect.


Randy:

You'll have to wait till the National Institute of Health as well as other universities complete the studies. I think these guys know the procedure for proper research, so don't worry in that respect.

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 20:31
Tony:

If it hasn't been peer-reviewed, then they're breaking scientific protocol, and are highly suspect.

Randy:

Kinda reminds me of the Theraupetic Touch study that the prestigious Journal of American Medicine published "showing" that TT didn't work. The study even involved a 9 yr old "researcher." Even a skeptic society jumped on JAMA for publishing a study with such poor protocol. So "peer review" means what...?

Who was the pharmacy guy on this thread? He can probably also tell you about "peer review" and how many study results that could benefit the public never see the light of day because of political forces(for one) in peer reviewed journals.

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 20:34
Tony:

Not true. I know a great deal about Reiki. It's woo-woo pseudoscience that doesn't work. The fact that you keep dodging being tested is the most telling fact of this thread.

Randy:

Who said Reiki was a science? I certainly didn't. And you need to post a note on your frig so you won't keep forgetting that I'm going to do a study...and you can be sure it will meet your "qualifications."

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 20:42
Tony:

Yes, and what are the results? You're acting as if testing the claims is the same as proving them. The results aren't in yet. As a quick search of the web,

Randy:

Studies aren't completed yet so hold your breath that you'll like the results!

Tony:

I can't find a single clinical test of Reiki that proves it works. Why do you suppose that is?

Randy:

We'll all keep waiting for awhile. Now, why do you suppose many studies are in progress? Someone, somewhere must think that something exists. If not, there would be no need or desire to study it. I mean...how do you "research" something that doesn't exist?

Bob Steinkraus
25th March 2003, 21:51
Originally posted by Randall Sexton

We'll all keep waiting for awhile. Now, why do you suppose many studies are in progress? Someone, somewhere must think that something exists. If not, there would be no need or desire to study it. I mean...how do you "research" something that doesn't exist? Nonsense. Are you claiming that everything ever studied exists?

Alchemists researched the philosopher's stone for centuries, but I don't see any elixir of life. People looked for phlogiston, but didn't find it. Lots of people are looking for flying saucers, but "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" is still a work of fiction. When my daughter was young, I had to look for monsters under her bed, but I never found any.

The studies you claim should be designed to find out whether or not Reiki has any real effects. This is still an open question, and it certainly isn't answered until there is some kind of proof of its reality.

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 22:51
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I'm aware Randi doesn't do the testing. I can read. Can you read Randi's rule # 3?
3. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.
Why should that be a problem? You can always supply your own photographer, too. The insistence on a photographic record is for use in his website, and on-site magazine. (http://www.randi.org/) It doesn't mean he's going to confiscate your camera. Or are you afraid that you'll be caught failing on film?

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I'll be here when you arrive.
It might be a while, which is why we could start the testing process now if you just applied. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 22:53
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
You'll have to wait till the National Institute of Health as well as other universities complete the studies. I think these guys know the procedure for proper research, so don't worry in that respect.
There you are. So they are NOT offering evidence of the efficacy of Reiki. Why do you keep citing these trials as if they were vindication?
BTW, could you please use the Quote function, as your posts are otherwise quite hard to read.
TIA,

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 22:55
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Who was the pharmacy guy on this thread? He can probably also tell you about "peer review" and how many study results that could benefit the public never see the light of day because of political forces(for one) in peer reviewed journals.
Look at this. A pseudoscientist, and conspiracy nut. "Reiki would have been known years ago if the mainstream weren't out to suppress the Truth for selfish reasons."
Grow up and get a life. :rolleyes:

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 22:59
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Who said Reiki was a science? I certainly didn't.
So, Reiki does NOT heal anything? You finally admit it. Reiki is not science, and ergo, has no clinical value. So, presumably, in the interests of honesty, you're going to tell your would-be "patients" that Reiki offers no hope, and you're going to stop doing it immediately.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
And you need to post a note on your frig so you won't keep forgetting that I'm going to do a study...and you can be sure it will meet your "qualifications."
Great! Step 1: Apply here, please. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
25th March 2003, 23:02
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Studies aren't completed yet so hold your breath that you'll like the results!
I'll like the results either way. Prove Reiki works, and you will change our understanding of science forever!

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
We'll all keep waiting for awhile. Now, why do you suppose many studies are in progress? Someone, somewhere must think that something exists. If not, there would be no need or desire to study it. I mean...how do you "research" something that doesn't exist?
More woo-woo thinking. These tests could be conducted to disprove the existence of Reiki. Also bear in mind that just because someone thinks Reiki works (like you), doesn't make that belief right. The notion of "no smoke without fire" is yet another example of pseudoscientific thinking. But then, you've already admitted that Reiki has no scientific value...

Randall Sexton
25th March 2003, 23:52
There you are. So they are NOT offering evidence of the efficacy of Reiki. Why do you keep citing these trials as if they were vindication?

I'm citing the trials, not as any vindication of anything, but to show you that research is being done by reputable scientific organizations. You will have to wait on the results. These organizations are experts and are already ahead of any of us on the board that agreed to be tested. So...wait, please till the results are published. That's what you wanted..test, tests, tests.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 00:12
That's right, Randall... but what will you do if the results come up empty? Admit there's nothing to Reiki and abandon it? My great powers of foresight say nay...

JimGould
26th March 2003, 04:01
I find it interesting that Anthony would suggest Sue works for nothing for this 1 year study (ie donates her time). I wonder how much Anthony earns a year and if he too would give this money up (maybe to a charity) ?
Anthony clearly has no idea of what anything costs and believes food and clothes and family expenditure if sent each week from the planat Zargog.


So, Reiki does NOT heal anything? You finally admit it. Reiki is not science, and ergo, has no clinical value

BTW Cosmology dosn't heal either and therefor in Anthonys own words
Quote 'Cosmology is not science, and ergo, has no clinical value' end of quote ;)

Randall, Forget the quote function. I find your way of posting makes is VERY clear who you are talking about and what you are refering to. Some people are still on the Janet and John books quite clearly.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 05:11
Originally posted by JimGould
I find it interesting that Anthony would suggest Sue works for nothing for this 1 year study (ie donates her time).
Works for nothing? When did I say that? We can do a really simple test with 20 people for one day, if you're willing. I keep saying this, but you're being deliberately obtuse. Running scared, aren't you, Jim? Besides, as Sue is a shoo-in for $1 million, why should she mind donating her time? She is going to win, isn't she? Isn't she?

Originally posted by JimGould
Anthony clearly has no idea of what anything costs and believes food and clothes and family expenditure if sent each week from the planat Zargog.
More ad hominem. You're the one from outer space, woo-woo.

Originally posted by JimGould
BTW Cosmology dosn't heal either and therefor in Anthonys own words Quote 'Cosmology is not science, and ergo, has no clinical value' end of quote ;)
But cosmology doesn't make claims to heal. It makes testable predictions about the universe, however, which is an element of science. Read Karl Popper (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/) for more of the philosophy of science. First you say that Reiki is a healing art, then Sue says it isn't. Which is it? And what, therefore, do you claim EXACTLY that Reiki can do?

Originally posted by JimGould
Randall, Forget the quote function. I find your way of posting makes is VERY clear who you are talking about and what you are refering to.
Ignore this woo-woo advice, Randall. Use the quote function. That's what it's there for.

Originally posted by JimGould
Some people are still on the Janet and John books quite clearly.
Yet MORE ad hominem. Do you behave this way, Jim, because you can't refute the arguments placed before you? It just makes you look like an even bigger asshole.
I've come to realise that Jim isn't interested in science, or truth, or expanding the boundaries of knowledge. He just wants to call people names and prance about angrily like a magnificent pouf. He's afraid to be tested, (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) and won't state clearly what Reiki can do. (See Karl Popper on predictions.) Talking of which, here's a prediction: Gould will NEVER agree to be tested, because he knows that it will prove him decisively wrong. I wonder if such prescience on my part makes me eligible for the $1 million? Naw... :rolleyes:

JimGould
26th March 2003, 05:32
Because this has become get obviously a waste of time I will use just one more of Anthonys posts to once again shoot him down with his own tripe... Here we go.... ready? ..... Okay here it comes....


Works for nothing? When did I say that?


And why should it cost money? You will, of course, be volunteering your time for free.

I rest my case and as for name calling? Well I would love to cut and paste and prove you wrong all day Anthony but quite honestly there is is little point as everyone apart from you seems to be able to read what you write.

Anthony ........................................... Nah, Can't be arsed ;)

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 06:02
Originally posted by JimGould
Because this has become get obviously a waste of time I will use just one more of Anthonys posts to once again shoot him down with his own tripe... Here we go.... ready? ..... Okay here it comes....
Yes, it's clearly a waste of time as you indulge in ad hominem, refuse to be tested, (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) and are clearly running scared from science.

Originally posted by JimGould
I rest my case and as for name calling? Well I would love to cut and paste and prove you wrong all day Anthony but quite honestly there is is little point as everyone apart from you seems to be able to read what you write.
Yet MORE ad hominem. Don't you ever get bored with it? Presumably not, because it's all you're capable of. C'mon, Jim, let's have some hard science from you, instead. Start by telling us which of the four fundamental forces Reiki employs.

Originally posted by JimGould
Nah, Can't be arsed
You got that right. We're still waiting for you to apply for testing. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 10:38
That's right, Randall... but what will you do if the results come up empty? Admit there's nothing to Reiki and abandon it? My great powers of foresight say nay...

Then I'd say the results came up empty. And I'll still touch people cause touch is healing. And touch is what people crave.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 10:48
Look at this. A pseudoscientist, and conspiracy nut. "Reiki would have been known years ago if the mainstream weren't out to suppress the Truth for selfish reasons."
Grow up and get a life.

Nope, just figured that since he was in the business also, he could tell you about peer reviewed journals. Same with any research studies. The protocol may be without flaw...but humanoids are running the show. As we sometimes say, "the operation was a success, but the patient died." Also I'm grown up...52 yrs and have a great life. I do wonder about some of you rigid, "there's only one road" guys. Life must be boring with only a left brain! Us right brain people can experience life.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:00
So, Reiki does NOT heal anything? You finally admit it. Reiki is not science, and ergo, has no clinical value. So, presumably, in the interests of honesty, you're going to tell your would-be "patients" that Reiki offers no hope, and you're going to stop doing it immediately.

God, I hope it's not a science! No clinical value? Remember, I'm in the hospital almost every day and science is not all there is. Does "the art and science " of medicine mean anything to you? The "healing arts?" Science has forgot the art part and opened the door for other type of healing arts and that's what people are spending their money on.

I merely give the public what they want and my consent form also advises them to see a western med practitioner. 100% have already done so and come to me (and others) because western medicine has not given them the results they want. I tell them that no matter which system is used, some people get results, some do not, some get reults without it and some in spite of it. Western medicine has failed miserably in regards to chronic illness, by the way.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:04
My great powers of foresight say nay...

Tony, you have no power cause you're too left-brained and can't prove it exists! Just playing with ya! Me, on the other hand, if I think I have power (even without extensive research) then I do.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:04
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Then I'd say the results came up empty. And I'll still touch people cause touch is healing. And touch is what people crave.
Let me get this straight. Are you admitting there is no medical value to Reiki? Note that if the results came up empty (i.e., there is no statistical significance in improvement rates between Reiki and non-Reiki patients), then it is because there is nothing there to find.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:08
Anthony clearly has no idea of what anything costs and believes food and clothes and family expenditure if sent each week from the planat Zargog.

You're right Jim. One drug study I was involved in had, let's see, the MD (who was paid a wad), rental space at the hospital, salaries for 4-5 team members and God knows what else. Wait a minute...has it been proven yet that God exists?

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:08
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Nope, just figured that since he was in the business also, he could tell you about peer reviewed journals. Same with any research studies. The protocol may be without flaw...but humanoids are running the show.
The whole point of a genuine protocol is to eliminate human error. This statement earns you a big fat zero.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Also I'm grown up...52 yrs and have a great life. I do wonder about some of you rigid, "there's only one road" guys. Life must be boring with only a left brain! Us right brain people can experience life.
What makes you think I don't use both hemispheres? You call anyone who doesn't agree with you "rigid", but, as Richard Dawkins said:

I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:17
Let me get this straight. Are you admitting there is no medical value to Reiki? Note that if the results came up empty (i.e., there is no statistical significance in improvement rates between Reiki and non-Reiki patients), then it is because there is nothing there to find.

I'm saying there is great value to touch, whether it be Reiki with it's associated symbols, etc., massage or other types of bodywork or anyone touching another. The Touch Research Institute by the way has completed a lot of studies on touch. And yes, it's a team of research scientists. One of these days I'll clue you guys in on a secret about the "ancient ways" and "modern medicine" and why sometimes they are saying the same thing. Maybe the word "metaphor" would be a clue...maybe not.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:22
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
God, I hope it's not a science! No clinical value? Remember, I'm in the hospital almost every day and science is not all there is.
Of course there is. Neither praying, waving magic wands, incantations, nor horoscopes have ever healed anyone. Medicine does that. So you are admitting that Reiki is not a science? If it's not, it has NO clinical value.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Does "the art and science " of medicine mean anything to you? The "healing arts?" Science has forgot the art part and opened the door for other type of healing arts and that's what people are spending their money on.
More woo-woo thinking. Just because people spend their money on quackery doesn't make the quackery effective. Calling medicine "art and science" is really insulting to the surgeon's skill. It's also like confusing the god of the Bible with Spinoza's god. You're committing amphiboly; translate the above paragraph into certain other languages, and it becomes meaningless, because two different words would have to be used for the two different contexts in which you have used "art".
Medicine is a science. It may seem like magic to the uninitiated, but there is nothing mystical about it.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I merely give the public what they want and my consent form also advises them to see a western med practitioner.
"Give the public what they want"? So now you're P. T. Barnum! If you were really honest, you'd send people to see a real doctor straight away, without wasting time with your magic crystals.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
100% have already done so and come to me (and others) because western medicine has not given them the results they want.
But you can't give them those results either! Just because people want something doesn't mean they can have it. I'd like to win the lottery jackpot, but...

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I tell them that no matter which system is used, some people get results, some do not, some get reults without it and some in spite of it.
And with Reiki, NONE of them will get it. Or have you conducted a double-blinded clinical trial, already? If so, submit the results to James Randi and win $1 million! (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Western medicine has failed miserably in regards to chronic illness, by the way.
Good grief! What makes you think that? What does atenolol do? Relieve chronic hypertension! What do anti-inflammatories do? Relieve chronic arthritis! What about hip replacements? Joint replacements? Laser surgery? They relieve chronic conditions!
Or are you saying that not enough is done for chronic patients? There I would agree with you, but that's a fault of the medical system, not of medicine itself. It's a characteristic of woo-woos that their thinking is muddled, and they can't identify the actual source of the problem. It's like blaming Goodyear and reviling the tyres on your car because your distributor cap is blown.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:24
The whole point of a genuine protocol is to eliminate human error. This statement earns you a big fat zero.

That is the point of it, but since humans are involved, there is always the chance of screwups. You get a big zero. Don't you remember earlier posts about all the scientic studies that have gone awry. Just an example...drugs placed on the market after passing clinical trials, then pulled off cause they kill people. Humans run the test and humans have agendas, political factors, egos, money involved, drug addictions, etc, etc.. All this and more is available for you to find.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:25
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Tony, you have no power cause you're too left-brained and can't prove it exists! Just playing with ya!
I'm gonna tell my mommy on you. :p

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Me, on the other hand, if I think I have power (even without extensive research) then I do.
Oh yeah? Then prove it and win $1 million! (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:27
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
You're right Jim. One drug study I was involved in had, let's see, the MD (who was paid a wad), rental space at the hospital, salaries for 4-5 team members and God knows what else. Wait a minute...has it been proven yet that God exists?
No, god does not exist. Ask me why. :cool:

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:27
Of course there is. Neither praying, waving magic wands, incantations, nor horoscopes have ever healed anyone. Medicine does that. So you are admitting that Reiki is not a science? If it's not, it has NO clinical value.

Well, I see you're preety much out of the loop. Look up the studies on prayer, Larry Dossey, MD will get you started. Even you might have a healing touch.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:30
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I'm saying there is great value to touch, whether it be Reiki with it's associated symbols, etc., massage or other types of bodywork or anyone touching another.
If people are paying you to touch them and pretend, it's called prostitution.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
The Touch Research Institute by the way has completed a lot of studies on touch. And yes, it's a team of research scientists.
Do you have an URL for them?

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
One of these days I'll clue you guys in on a secret about the "ancient ways" and "modern medicine" and why sometimes they are saying the same thing. Maybe the word "metaphor" would be a clue...maybe not.
Don't beat about the bush; I wouldn't know a metaphor if it bit me. My English is too crap.
So go on then, "clue me in".

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:34
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
That is the point of it, but since humans are involved, there is always the chance of screwups.
The protocol minimizes the possibility of error. Performing the tests more than once eliminates error. See?

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
You get a big zero.
My two year-old niece can repeat things, too.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Don't you remember earlier posts about all the scientic studies that have gone awry. Just an example...drugs placed on the market after passing clinical trials, then pulled off cause they kill people. Humans run the test and humans have agendas, political factors, egos, money involved, drug addictions, etc, etc.. All this and more is available for you to find.
Yes, but that isn't an indictment of the protocol. In fact, it's approval for the protocol, because they only way these people have been able to ram through FDA approval for unsafe drugs has been to cheat on the protocol. Once again, the woo-woo targets the wrong problem. But let's play your game for a moment: people are so corrupt, no test is ever worth the paper it's written on, because it's been falsified. This must therefore apply equally to any positive Reiki results, so everything you have claimed is worthless. Way to go. You just invalidated your own claims.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:38
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Well, I see you're preety much out of the loop. Look up the studies on prayer, Larry Dossey, MD will get you started. Even you might have a healing touch.
Actually, I'm fully aware of this dross. The study was originally designed to compare mortality rates between a treatment group which was prayed for and a control group which was not. The two groups were matched for age, CD4+ count and previous AIDS-related complications. Problem is, one month into the six-month trial a new treatment, triple-drug anti-retroviral therapy, hit the market. It revolutionised AIDS care. As a result, only one patient died throughout the trial, making comparisons of mortality rates meaningless.
Having failed in their primary aims, D(r)ossey crunched the data on some secondary scores - HIV symptoms, quality of life - both inconclusive. Psychological stress, CD4+ counts - actually worse in the treatment group, though I don't know whether those results were statistically significant. They found only one statistically significant relation favouring a positive effect of prayer - the treatment group spent less time in hospital. Two problems with that - firstly, it was the only positive result in who knows how many tries - so it's a bit of a data dredge. Secondly, and more importantly, length of hospital stay is strongly influenced by income and health insurance. Since neither of these confounding factors were accounted for, the correlation was meaningless.
Having broken the randomisation of the double-blind trial and come up blank, they decided to look at 23 illnesses related to AIDS. Unfortunately for them, they hadn't gathered the relevant data in the double-blind part of the trial. So they reblinded the patient records - badly. All they did was black out the patient's names. All other data, much of which had nothing to do with the study but could be used to identify the patients, was left intact. That alone invalidates the results. To make matters worse, the one person who was given the job of gathering the relevant data admitted he could identify the patients from information in their records, knew which group each patient had been assigned to, was and still is a strong believer in distance healing, and had put up $7500 of his own money to help fund the study. Add to that the fact that they were looking at 23 separate parameters - in other words, another data dredge - and what you have is one hell of a mess.
All clear now?

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:41
<snip> Calling medicine "art and science" is really insulting to the surgeon's skill.

Don't worry, it's the medical profession that's come up with the term, not me. Complain to them; they are they ones having more classes on how to get back to the "art" of medicine. And from the man who invention defibrillators, we have Bernard Lowen, MD, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and his book, The Lost Art of Healing: Practicing Compassion in Medicine." You earn another zero.

And by the way, surgeons are merely mechanics and techncians. I've even seen them operate with a book open! One surgeon admitted to me he was useless in the real world.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:46
Touch Research Institute is at www.maimi.edu/touch-research

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:48
My two year-old niece can repeat things, too.

Did she learn it from you? Take the test, take the test, take the test.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:50
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Don't worry, it's the medical profession that's come up with the term, not me. Complain to them; they are they ones having more classes on how to get back to the "art" of medicine. And from the man who invention defibrillators, we have Bernard Lowen, MD, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and his book, The Lost Art of Healing: Practicing Compassion in Medicine." You earn another zero.
You miss the point, Randy; Dr. Lowen is discussing bedside manner. You're discussing magic. This is amphiboly. Your use of "art" (as in "black arts"), and their use of "art" (to denote skill) are actually homonyms. In Japanese, the homonyms are rendered moot by the use of two differnet words: "maho" and "ude".

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
And by the way, surgeons are merely mechanics and techncians. I've even seen them operate with a book open! One surgeon admitted to me he was useless in the real world.
I know surgeons admit their first aid is crap; they prefer well-scrubbed patients in hospital operating theatres. What's your point? None of this explains the pseudoscience behind Reiki.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:54
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Did she learn it from you? Take the test, take the test, take the test.
So, when are you going to agree to be tested? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) You can give the $1 million to your Woo-woo Institute, if you like.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 11:56
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Touch Research Institute is at www.maimi.edu/touch-research
The link is broken. Freudian slip?

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:57
Yes, but that isn't an indictment of the protocol. In fact, it's approval for the protocol, because they only way these people have been able to ram through FDA approval for unsafe drugs has been to cheat on the protocol. Once again, the woo-woo targets the wrong problem. But let's play your game for a moment: people are so corrupt, no test is ever worth the paper it's written on, because it's been falsified. This must therefore apply equally to any positive Reiki results, so everything you have claimed is worthless. Way to go. You just invalidated your own claims.

Jesus, you're dense tonght! Of course the protocol is God's gift to research as we know it today. Im not targeting the wrong problem; there is "cheating" in some cases, not all. I just happen to see what occurs when it fails...as well as when it succeeds.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 11:59
Well, if I spelled "Miami" correctly it might work!

www.miami.edu/touch-research

Gene Williams
26th March 2003, 12:02
Advantage, Kehoe!

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 12:04
You miss the point, Randy; Dr. Lowen is discussing bedside manner. You're discussing magic. This is amphiboly. Your use of "art" (as in "black arts"), and their use of "art" (to denote skill) are actually homonyms. In Japanese, the homonyms are rendered moot by the use of two differnet words: "maho" and "ude".

Actually, I'm quite skilled in the healing arts because of my bedside manner. I don't speak Japanese, only Texan. Words can heal also...hope I haven't opened up another can of worms with that last statement.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 12:06
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Jesus, you're dense tonght!
His thoughts are very heavy. But why are you invoking him? He doesn't exist, remember!

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Of course the protocol is God's gift to research as we know it today. Im not targeting the wrong problem; there is "cheating" in some cases, not all. I just happen to see what occurs when it fails...as well as when it succeeds.
Yes, but you're being obtuse (or you really are that dumb). So you see what happens when people cheat on the protocol? All that says is we must weed out dishonest researchers. If the protocol is "god's gift" (natch), why won't you agree to have it applied to your Reiki? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) $1 million is at stake!

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 12:10
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Actually, I'm quite skilled in the healing arts because of my bedside manner. I don't speak Japanese, only Texan. Words can heal also...hope I haven't opened up another can of worms with that last statement.
Well, y'all know that no matter how purty yur words, yur Reiki is still not science.
Tell the guys at the Miami centre about the $1 million challenge. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) If they're conducting Reiki, acupuncture, or anything else, they're eligible to apply.

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 12:11
Before I go to bed, how about another "experience?" I took 2 trimesters of Chi Nei Tsang (just to experience it mind you)by a guy who was an acupuncturist, Chi Nei Tsang practitioner as well as having the pleasure of being on the first delegation to China to learn Chen style Taji. Chi Nei Tsang is really far out and makes Reiki look tame. He was demonstrating on me one day and while prodding around on my abdomen, made the comment,"Randy did you slam your testicles in the car door?" Unknown to anyone, I was suffering a good case of epididimitis!

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 12:15
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Before I go to bed, how about another "experience?" I took 2 trimesters of Chi Nei Tsang (just to experience it mind you)by a guy who was an acupuncturist, Chi Nei Tsang practitioner as well as having the pleasure of being on the first delegation to China to learn Chen style Taji. Chi Nei Tsang is really far out and makes Reiki look tame. He was demonstrating on me one day and while prodding around on my abdomen, made the comment,"Randy did you slam your testicles in the car door?" Unknown to anyone, I was suffering a good case of epididimitis!
This is yet more anecdote, Randy. To verify that this man could genuinely diagnose inflammations, we'd have to have a proper double-blind test with a control group. Otherwise, your story has as much validity as saying, "I went to a Chinese herbalist. I was suffering from tonsillitis, and he DIDN'T NOTICE!"

Gene Williams
26th March 2003, 12:16
Would you reiki guys just look up the definition of scientific method somewhere and then answer the simple question: " Do you claim that reiki is "hard science" in the sense in which it is generally understood? If you do not, no problem, you may call it anything you like. That doesn't mean it has no use or that it won't work for some people. Just because something is "art" rather than science does not mean it is worthless, i.e. psychoanalysis (be quiet Tony:p ). Your problem here seems to be that you are claiming scientific validity for something which, by no stetch of definition or imagination, can be called such. Gene

bruceb
26th March 2003, 12:56
Every time Tony calls his science into the fray to denounce something, it shows an inept study that proves absolutely nothing!

This is very significant in the fact that the proofs of his knowledge stems from bad science rather than good science that proves something, one way or the other, or postulates other avenues to be researched.

It would seem, the double blind methods employed do not consider the various conditions of emotional attachement, personal contact verses projection through obsticles to be a factor for these studys.

In the real world, the application of simple radar, or sight to object, distance from object, and distance of effect, or even conditions favorable to effect are the basis of application for most of these tests which seem to be crux of study.

How many different compounds are affected by light as an activator? The last time I went to the dentist, some fillings were heat, some were light, and I know that various compounds respond favorably in curing to heat and light .... so why not have the human body do the same to favorable conditions?

Why not?

I don't say we can place them healing hands on someone and cure an incurable disease, broken bones, or accellerate healing to incredible measurable means of fantasy, but why not some beneficial means that can be measured?

Maybe the studys are people so smart they are stupid? But, those are my observations of the present discussion ....

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 13:03
Originally posted by bruceb
Every time Tony calls his science into the fray to denounce something, it shows an inept study that proves absolutely nothing!
Science is stupid and proves nothing? What planet are you from, Bruce?

Originally posted by bruceb
This is very significant in the fact that the proofs of his knowledge stems from bad science rather than good science that proves something, one way or the other, or postulates other avenues to be researched.
What bollocks is this? My knowledge is based on the finest science. But then Bruce thinks that "bad science" is any science that doesn't tell him what he wants to hear.

Originally posted by bruceb
It would seem, the double blind methods employed do not consider the various conditions of emotional attachement, personal contact verses projection through obsticles to be a factor for these studys.
Projection, emotional attachment, etc., are unscientific. Demonstrate them, Bruce, or get out of the lab.

Originally posted by bruceb
In the real world,
Which you don't inhabit...

Originally posted by bruceb
the application of simple radar, or sight to object, distance from object, and distance of effect, or even conditions favorable to effect are the basis of application for most of these tests which seem to be crux of study.
What crap is this? Go study some science, Bruce.

Originally posted by bruceb
How many different compounds are affected by light as an activator? The last time I went to the dentist, some fillings were heat, some were light, and I know that various compounds respond favorably in curing to heat and light .... so why not have the human body do the same to favorable conditions?
Does Reiki claim to be phototropic?

Originally posted by bruceb
I don't say we can place them healing hands on someone and cure an incurable disease, broken bones, or accellerate healing to incredible measurable means of fantasy, but why not some beneficial means that can be measured?
That's just it, Bruce. Tell us which measurable benefit can be derived from Reiki, and we'll test the claim.

Originally posted by bruceb
Maybe the studys are people so smart they are stupid? But, those are my observations of the present discussion ....
Well, you're the really stupid one, Brucey Baby...

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 20:02
This is yet more anecdote, Randy. To verify that this man could genuinely diagnose inflammations, we'd have to have a proper double-blind test with a control group. Otherwise, your story has as much validity as saying, "I went to a Chinese herbalist. I was suffering from tonsillitis, and he DIDN'T NOTICE!"

Yes, it's an anecodote. I've got lot's of them. Experience has validity, although maybe not from your perspective. I'll let you research-oriented types do all the boring research as I just like the action. I'm one of those types who just doesn't know that things can't be done, therefore does it. It's worked for me in all areas, personal and business.

Here's another for you. Physician sit down next to me, stating that she has a bad headache. I ask if I can hold one hand and nothing more. She's writing with her other hand, and after about 45 secs or so, asks, "are you making my headache go away."

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 20:28
No, god does not exist. Ask me why.

Who knows? When I was in Shreveport, LA, a well-known attorney was standing in the bow of a ski boat and as they approached the dock, raised his arms up and said, "if there is a God, hit me." Bright clear day and someone hit him with a bolt of lightining and fried his ass. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Really made for some big news in that bible belt!

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 20:35
I know surgeons admit their first aid is crap; they prefer well-scrubbed patients in hospital operating theatres. What's your point? None of this explains the pseudoscience behind Reiki.

First-aid? I'm talking about the OR. I've been in there with some big guys including doing 85 open heart cases at the Texas Heart Institute with Denton Cooley. 1979 I believe. My point is that I'm a devil's advocate. Does the devil exist?

Randall Sexton
26th March 2003, 20:49
Good grief! What makes you think that? What does atenolol do? Relieve chronic hypertension! What do anti-inflammatories do? Relieve chronic arthritis! What about hip replacements? Joint replacements? Laser surgery? They relieve chronic conditions!
Or are you saying that not enough is done for chronic patients? There I would agree with you, but that's a fault of the medical system, not of medicine itself. It's a characteristic of woo-woos that their thinking is muddled, and they can't identify the actual source of the problem. It's like blaming Goodyear and reviling the tyres on your car because your distributor cap is blown

Again, this is not merely my assessment, but western medicine's assessment of itself. I'm not just "throwing my original thoughts" out here. Look up all the conditions (except laser surgery) you mentioned, hypertension, arthritis (reason for probably the majority of joint replacements), etc. Did you read recently where a study showed that sham knee surgery had the same success rate as actual knee surgery? Maybe that's why acupucture works!! Hundreds of thousands of those are done yearly. Again, this analysis of chronc conditions comes from inside (and outside) the profession.
And the anti-inflammatories eat your stomach lining up as they provide some relief from arthritis. I almost bleed to death from Motrin (immediately after I left the MD's office)!

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 22:31
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Yes, it's an anecodote. I've got lot's of them. Experience has validity,
No it doesn't, because you could be fooling yourself. That's why we double-blind the tests.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
although maybe not from your perspective. I'll let you research-oriented types do all the boring research as I just like the action.
More woo-wooism; first, research is not boring, and secondly, you have here created a false dichotomy.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I'm one of those types who just doesn't know that things can't be done, therefore does it. It's worked for me in all areas, personal and business.
Can you walk on water, too? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Here's another for you. Physician sit down next to me, stating that she has a bad headache. I ask if I can hold one hand and nothing more. She's writing with her other hand, and after about 45 secs or so, asks, "are you making my headache go away."
More placebo, and another anecdote. It's of no use. Perform a proper double-blind test and show me the data. Then you can win $1 million. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 22:34
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Who knows? When I was in Shreveport, LA, a well-known attorney was standing in the bow of a ski boat and as they approached the dock, raised his arms up and said, "if there is a God, hit me." Bright clear day and someone hit him with a bolt of lightining and fried his ass. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. Really made for some big news in that bible belt!
Bollocks. I've heard this urban myth, too. It was during a thunderstorm, and he was on a boat in the middle of a lake, that's why he was supposedly tempting the lightening. And if you act as the only lightening rod around, of course you'll get hit. BTW, it's an urban legend like the rat in KFC, and it never happened.

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 22:36
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
First-aid? I'm talking about the OR.
So what's your point? Because under-qualified surgeons are permitted to perform surgery, you're going to perform your woo-woo science and cure congestive heart failure?

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
My point is that I'm a devil's advocate. Does the devil exist?
No. (See above.)

Kimpatsu
26th March 2003, 22:38
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Again, this is not merely my assessment, but western medicine's assessment of itself. I'm not just "throwing my original thoughts" out here. Look up all the conditions (except laser surgery) you mentioned, hypertension, arthritis (reason for probably the majority of joint replacements), etc. Did you read recently where a study showed that sham knee surgery had the same success rate as actual knee surgery? Maybe that's why acupucture works!!
Can you PROVE that acupuncture works? $1 million, remember! (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Hundreds of thousands of those are done yearly. Again, this analysis of chronc conditions comes from inside (and outside) the profession.
And the anti-inflammatories eat your stomach lining up as they provide some relief from arthritis. I almost bleed to death from Motrin (immediately after I left the MD's office)!
So what's your point? Your "psychic powers" (natch) can't cure them either!

JimGould
27th March 2003, 04:45
Your problem here seems to be that you are claiming scientific validity for something
No, Tony is claiming it is NOT. I havn't seen one Pro Reiki post say it IS ;)
It looks to me like the Reiki people say it works, Tony says take the test and the Reiki people just keep doing what they do. That about sums this whole thread up.

'renso
27th March 2003, 05:03
Reiki people keep doing what they do, you say... I enjoyed this thread, and while I agree with Tony, I don't like his implying that anyone doing reiki is a charlatan deserving universal contempt. I just see some innocent wishful thinking.

I know that the test would show that reiki isn't working, so I'd ask something else to reiki "healers", something less prone to shatter their pride, than a "challenge" à la Tony would be: why don't you try to challenge your own beliefs, honestly and between yourself, instead of defending them in all the ways?

You keep telling Tony to try reiki; in the same view, why don't you just pretend to heal someone with reiki instead of actually "projecting" your ki, and see what happens? THIS would be interesting, at least as much as all the "miracle healing" anecdotes are.

Why not?

Sue Woo Woo
27th March 2003, 05:04
I orginally said that I personally never said once that I claim to heal anything.

To which Tony replied......
So Reiki is NOT a medical protocol? Make up your mind; if you don't heal, what on earth DO you do?

As I have said all along, I do Reiki, that makes me the channel for the Reiki energy, the Reiki does the healing, not me specifically.

Much like how a radio works, you have this little contraption that when tuned correctly will transmit a signal coming from somewhere else. That does not mean the radio makes the music.

I claim to do Reiki. I don't claim to heal. I use a tool to assist in healing. Much like someone like Tony, when he is ill he takes a tablet or medication to feel better, he goes to his doctor who tells him what pills to take. How many scientifically proven medications claim to cure illnesses Tony?
I always thought the labels said "for the treatment of such and such....." Can't say I've ever had a doctor say to me swallow this three times a day and you will be cured.

I do agree that it would be great to see Reiki tested.

Let's look at what has been suggested so far.

Randall’s post
One hundred Reiki-naive FM patients will be recruited from a chronic fatigue referral clinic and will participate in an 8-week trial. Patients will be randomized into one of two Reiki groups (direct-contact and distant Reiki) or one of two control groups (sham and placebo). Patients will receive either Reiki or placebo 16 times during the course of the study. Patients will be assessed at study entry, at Weeks 4 and 8, and 12 weeks post-treatment.

Yeah this is possible.

Tony says.....
we can test cures over time against a control group not receiving any treatment.

So Tony is an 8 week study long enough?

or shall we use your other idea......
You just do Reiki on 50 N-stage cancer patients for--what? 1 year?--and at the end of the year, we see how many are in remission, compared to a control group who received no such treatment.
Piece of cake.

or Bob says.....

You split up a bunch of arthritis patients (or patients suffering some other kind of intractable, chronicly painful condition) into two groups. Make sure both groups are Reiki-naive, so neither can tell which is the "real" Reiki treatment and which is "fake". Then have all the patients rank their pain levels (one scale often used is from 1 to 9, expressing the pain level in "dols", a word derived from dolor, the Latin word for "pain"). Track this over time, and you should be able to tell if Reiki patients rank their pain levels lower than those receiving only placebo treatment.

Again this is possible.

Now let's look at what's on offer here.....

Tony to Randall
How about this: we have you tested anyway, but without Randi's involvement, the $1 million won't be on the table. Hell, I'll test you next time I'm in Hawaii, if that's all it takes. But what's the betting you find another excuse to dodge that, too?

Let's not dodge the best suggestion I see so far.
Tony is the one that remains so focused on seeing this study conducted, let's be his providers and assist with his tests. Let's get rid of Randi's involvement and his ridiculous clauses on the agreement schedule.
As Tony later tells us........Or have you conducted a double-blinded clinical trial, already? If so, submit the results to James Randi and win $1 million!
Cool - we can get that million after all.

Tony
I've also told you time and again that I'm willing to create test protocols.

Cool - Tony is going to design the protocols, less work for us to do.


Ohhhh but here comes the important bit.

As Tony so clearly tells us......

And why should it cost money? You will, of course, be volunteering your time for free.

(As Tony has the gold card, I vote that he should cover all the other research related costs not so far mentioned in any of his posts)

But then Tony says things like this.........
Works for nothing? When did I say that?
Ummmmmmmm you said it earlier, as per your qoute above.
Sorry but doesn't volunteering your time equate to working for nothing??

Are you prepared to volunteer an equal amount of time out of your life Tony?
Hey let's match up hour for hour.
For every Reiki hour I donate - you can donate the "placebo Reiki" hour.

Followed by even more Tony statements.......
We can do a really simple test with 20 people for one day, if you're willing. I keep saying this, but you're being deliberately obtuse.

Your being confusing. Before you say you need 50 people over the space of a year now it's 20 in a day. Which is it Tony?
Which study will afford the greater chance of a successful result??

Tony again......
I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.

Ohhhhh ain't that the truth.

Just because people want something doesn't mean they can have it.

Ohhhhhh more wise Tony words.
The only thing that appears "wanted" within this post is some science related proof of the existance and benefits of Reiki.

Well as I have an understanding of Reiki already, I don't need to go and satisfy a want.

If the scientists amongst this post want their studies conducted then they can employ me to do the Reiki for the study.

My current hourly rate is $40.00 and I am happy to do a one day, one month, 8 week or one year contract.

I do enough volunteer hours as it is now so I am not willing to offer my time for nothing.


WoooooooooooooooooooWooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


























:D

JimGould
27th March 2003, 05:14
You keep telling Tony to try reiki; in the same view, why don't you just pretend to heal someone with reiki instead of actually "projecting" your ki, and see what happens? THIS would be interesting, at least as much as all the "miracle healing" anecdotes are. Well ths problem is we would come up with the same answer and Tony would still say the same things. The people who do Reiki know that they couldn't do it before they were taught to. After they are shown how they can do it so as you can see this is something that is being done all the time.
Nice thought tho.

At the end of the day the only one who can give Tony the answer he wants is himself. If Tony goes and takes Levels 1, 2 and 3 in Reiki and it dosn't work he can sit back smugly in his chair and call us what he wants but until then he is just relentlesly going round in circles. It would be far cheaper, quicker and more effective for Tony to do this.

How about Tony goes on these courses (with an open mind HAHAHA) and then reports back here on his findings ?

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 06:30
Originally posted by JimGould
It looks to me like the Reiki people say it works, Tony says take the test and the Reiki people just keep doing what they do. That about sums this whole thread up.
Almost, Jim. The fundamental, inescapable point is that for Reiki to work, it must have clinical value, which is scientifically testable. That's why I keep urging everyone to be tested. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 07:14
Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I orginally said that I personally never said once that I claim to heal anything.
Which, de facto, is an admission of the absence of clinical value.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
As I have said all along, I do Reiki, that makes me the channel for the Reiki energy, the Reiki does the healing, not me specifically.
What is this energy? Which of the four fundamental forces does it employ? How is it calibrated? In coulombs? Watts? Joules? Newtons?
BTW, saying "the Reiki does the healing, not me" is ridiculous, like saying that the antibiotics, not the doctor, heal the patient. It may be strictly true, but the antibiotics require a doctor to administer them in the first place. This smells fishily like trying to get out of being tested. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Much like how a radio works, you have this little contraption that when tuned correctly will transmit a signal coming from somewhere else. That does not mean the radio makes the music.
So you're saying this "energy" comes from outside, and your just the receiver? It doesn't matter, we can still test for the presence of such energy and, once detected, you'll still win the $1 million. Of course, this "energy" has to be there in the first place...

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I claim to do Reiki. I don't claim to heal. I use a tool to assist in healing.
More nitpicking. In truth, Reiki can't "assist" in anything, because it's a fantasy.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Much like someone like Tony, when he is ill he takes a tablet or medication to feel better, he goes to his doctor who tells him what pills to take. How many scientifically proven medications claim to cure illnesses Tony?
All of them. That's why they have to be FDA (or equivalent) approved. This makes your claim even easier to determine; for example, we know the chemical mechanism by which beta-blockers alleviate heart congestion. If Reiki is equivalent, we can easily test it.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I always thought the labels said "for the treatment of such and such....." Can't say I've ever had a doctor say to me swallow this three times a day and you will be cured.
Oh, come on. You're just arguing semantics, in the way that Bill Clinton did. (And he was easier to swallow; just ask Monica Lewinsky.) The purpose of taking medication is to affect a cure, as you well know.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I do agree that it would be great to see Reiki tested.
Great. So take the test. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Let's look at what has been suggested so far.
Randall’s post

One hundred Reiki-naive FM patients will be recruited from a chronic fatigue referral clinic and will participate in an 8-week trial. Patients will be randomized into one of two Reiki groups (direct-contact and distant Reiki) or one of two control groups (sham and placebo). Patients will receive either Reiki or placebo 16 times during the course of the study. Patients will be assessed at study entry, at Weeks 4 and 8, and 12 weeks post-treatment.
Yeah this is possible.
Tony says.....

We can test cures over time against a control group not receiving any treatment.
So Tony is an 8 week study long enough?
Yes, it should be.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
or shall we use your other idea......

You just do Reiki on 50 N-stage cancer patients for--what? 1 year?--and at the end of the year, we see how many are in remission, compared to a control group who received no such treatment.
Piece of cake.
Really? Then let's get to it!

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
or Bob says.....

You split up a bunch of arthritis patients (or patients suffering some other kind of intractable, chronicly painful condition) into two groups. Make sure both groups are Reiki-naive, so neither can tell which is the "real" Reiki treatment and which is "fake". Then have all the patients rank their pain levels (one scale often used is from 1 to 9, expressing the pain level in "dols", a word derived from dolor, the Latin word for "pain"). Track this over time, and you should be able to tell if Reiki patients rank their pain levels lower than those receiving only placebo treatment.
Again this is possible.
Then why don't you do it?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Now let's look at what's on offer here.....
Tony to Randall
How about this: we have you tested anyway, but without Randi's involvement, the $1 million won't be on the table. Hell, I'll test you next time I'm in Hawaii, if that's all it takes. But what's the betting you find another excuse to dodge that, too?
Let's not dodge the best suggestion I see so far.
Tony is the one that remains so focused on seeing this study conducted, let's be his providers and assist with his tests. Let's get rid of Randi's involvement and his ridiculous clauses on the agreement schedule.
Be careful, becasue I will insist on a visual record of your humiliation, too, which I shall make available to JREF, (http://www.randi.org/) CSICOP, (http://www.csicop.org/) and others.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
As Tony later tells us........Or have you conducted a double-blinded clinical trial, already? If so, submit the results to James Randi and win $1 million!
Cool - we can get that million after all.
Let's see the double-blinded test results, then.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I've also told you time and again that I'm willing to create test protocols.
We already have three suggestions above. Go ahead and post your suggested protocol RIGHT HERE AND NOW.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Cool - Tony is going to design the protocols, less work for us to do.
Pick whichever one of the three above and let's get cracking.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Ohhhh but here comes the important bit.
Oh, let me guess. Here come the excuses, which mean that you're backing out after all.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
And why should it cost money? You will, of course, be volunteering your time for free.
That's right. You made the claim, all it costs you is the time, about an hour, to prove it. (Depending on chosen protocol.)

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
(As Tony has the gold card, I vote that he should cover all the other research related costs not so far mentioned in any of his posts)
No. You're the one who made the claim. I'm donating my time, the protocol, and the camcorder. As Randi says, you pay your own transportation costs. You don't need anything else, like a 200-metre pyramid, do you? This is just another excuse to back out of being tested because you know that YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU CLAIM!

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
But then Tony says things like this.........
Works for nothing? When did I say that?
You said that you don't accept money for treatments. You have, after all, rather sniffily eschewed the $1 million prize (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) that can be yours for a simple demonstration.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Ummmmmmmm you said it earlier, as per your qoute above.
Sorry but doesn't volunteering your time equate to working for nothing??
But you'll be paid $1 million! Unless, of course, you can't do what you claim...

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Are you prepared to volunteer an equal amount of time out of your life Tony?
Yes.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Hey let's match up hour for hour.
For every Reiki hour I donate - you can donate the "placebo Reiki" hour.
Sounds fair to me. I'd have to be present at every session, anyway, to make sure the protocol is observed.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Followed by even more Tony statements.......
[QUOTE]We can do a really simple test with 20 people for one day, if you're willing. I keep saying this, but you're being deliberately obtuse.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
[B]Your being confusing. Before you say you need 50 people over the space of a year now it's 20 in a day. Which is it Tony?
Which study will afford the greater chance of a successful result??
That depends on the nature of your claims. I'm trying to tailor a protocol to your claimed superpower, but because you won't be pinned down on what it is you think you can do, I'm suggesting various ballpark scenarios.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Tony again......

I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.
No, as I stated quite clearly, that was Richard Dawkins. Anyway...

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Ohhhhh ain't that the truth.
Yes, you see, science is 100% right, and you are 100% wrong. You can't heal people with fictional superpowers.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
...Ohhhhhh more wise Tony words.
The only thing that appears "wanted" within this post is some science related proof of the existance and benefits of Reiki.
That's right, which you consistently refuse to supply.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Well as I have an understanding of Reiki already, I don't need to go and satisfy a want.
Ah, here's the copout. I knew all that earlier stuff about willing to be tested was all lies.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
If the scientists amongst this post want their studies conducted then they can employ me to do the Reiki for the study.
My current hourly rate is $40.00 and I am happy to do a one day, one month, 8 week or one year contract.
And my fees for participating in the protocol are $100 an hour, payable to a charity of my choice.
This is just another of your lies, Sue. You are clearly terrified of being exposed as a charlatan.
But we'll get you in the end.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I do enough volunteer hours as it is now so I am not willing to offer my time for nothing.
It's not for nothing; it's for $1 million and a Nobel prize. How about having us double up and using your regular dimwitted customers used as the test group? Then we can find a similar control group and compare results.
The truth is, you're just making ever-more yawning excuses to get out of being tested, and shown up for cheating people out of $40 an hour. You should be ashamed of yourself. One day the Fraud Squad is going to come knocking, and then you'll really be in trouble.

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 07:24
Originally posted by JimGould
Well ths problem is we would come up with the same answer and Tony would still say the same things.
NOT TRUE! I would be astonished, because we'd have to pulp every modern physics textbook in existence, but I would very much admit to having been part of such a test, not least because I'd share in winning a Nobel prize!

Originally posted by JimGould
The people who do Reiki know that they couldn't do it before they were taught to. After they are shown how they can do it so as you can see this is something that is being done all the time.
Nice thought tho.
I don't understand. We're not testing the patients; we're testing the practitioners.

Originally posted by JimGould
At the end of the day the only one who can give Tony the answer he wants is himself. If Tony goes and takes Levels 1, 2 and 3 in Reiki and it dosn't work he can sit back smugly in his chair and call us what he wants but until then he is just relentlesly going round in circles. It would be far cheaper, quicker and more effective for Tony to do this.
I'm not going to waste my time, ans especially not pay money, to learn woo-woo nonsense. What I can do, however, is apply scientific protocols to existing Reiki practitioners to determine if they really can do what they claim. (Which is exactly what, BTW? You keep ducking that question!)

Originally posted by JimGould
How about Tony goes on these courses (with an open mind HAHAHA) and then reports back here on his findings ?
No. There's a much faster way. I test you for your claimed superpowers. Why don't you take some science courses, to learn why Reiki is impossible? (But you'd need an open mind for that, not one stuffed full of nonsense.)
I think you're very selfish, Jim. Here you claim to have an ability that will revolutionise our understanding of science, win you $1 million (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) and a Nobel prize, and can, according to you, save countless lives all over the world. And you won't share it with us! You won't even let us determine how it's done! Don't you care about all those poor, suffering children in Africa whom you could magically help? What's wrong with you? Devoid of compassion? No heart? Or is it another organ that's suspiciously absent...?

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 07:37
Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I do enough volunteer hours as it is now so I am not willing to offer my time for nothing.
How about this, then, Sue: I'll pay the cost of a treatment for a protocol to be performed, but if you fail, you repay me with interest. Fair enough?

Exorcist_Fist
27th March 2003, 08:55
hmm, according to this page, Reiki is what I would consider to be relatively low level qi gong.

http://www.reiki.fi/english/reiki/about_reiki/whatisreiki.htm

Randall Sexton
27th March 2003, 10:24
Bollocks. I've heard this urban myth, too. It was during a thunderstorm, and he was on a boat in the middle of a lake, that's why he was supposedly tempting the lightening. And if you act as the only lightening rod around, of course you'll get hit. BTW, it's an urban legend like the rat in KFC, and it never happened.

It might be an urban myth somewhere and this case might have kicked it off. However, I was living in the city at the time. Bright clear day and he was coming in to the same boat ramp I used.

JimGould
27th March 2003, 11:35
Lots of what Tony just said Shesh Tony stop making stuff up :mad:

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 11:36
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
It might be an urban myth somewhere and this case might have kicked it off. However, I was living in the city at the time. Bright clear day and he was coming in to the same boat ramp I used.
Evidence?

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 11:39
Originally posted by JimGould
Shesh Tony stop making stuff up
Huh? How can a quote from you be making stuff up? Fried your brains with too many illegal drugs, right, Jim?
So, when are you going to prove you can do what you say? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

JimGould
27th March 2003, 11:44
More Libel. I wonder how much insurance cover the Moderators and owner of Ebudo has?

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 11:45
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' : Tony Kehoe, E-budo 2003
Nice of you to attribute such a brilliant quote to me, Jim, but I'm afraid you've misquoted. It was Carl Sagan who said that. Here's another quote for you:

Reader Santeri Saarimaa of Finland informs us of an article from Tieteen Kuvalehti ("Illustrated Science") dealing with the plethora of "free energy" and "perpetual motion" machines currently being offered. He quotes, roughly translated, the closing quote:
"Nobody knows yet whether there is a so-far-unknown law of physics that prevents this kind of a perpetual motion machine from working."
Notes Santeri, there is "No mention about the already-known laws of physics that deny free energy." Exactly. One has to wonder where the science is in Illustrated Science.

The same holds true for Reiki, which is impossible under known, proven laws of science.
Now please amend your quote.

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 11:47
Originally posted by JimGould
More Libel. I wonder how much insurance cover the Moderators and owner of Ebudo has?
It's not libel, it's fair comment.
Hey, great: come on and sue. Then you'd have to prove in court that you have the super powers you claim to have. That really WILL be fun.

JimGould
27th March 2003, 11:48
The same holds true for Reiki, which is impossible under known, proven laws of science Science will catch up one day.

JimGould
27th March 2003, 11:51
Saying that someone is taking drugs IS libel and has nothing to do with Reiki. Not to mention all the other made up stuff you attribute to people that they have not said.

Bob Steinkraus
27th March 2003, 17:00
Originally posted by JimGould
Science will catch up one day. Nonsense, earlier in the thread it was stated specifically that Reiki practitioners were not interested in subjecting Reiki to scientific testing.

Experience has validity, although maybe not from your perspective. I'll let you research-oriented types do all the boring research as I just like the action.If Reiki practitioners don't care to do research to actually prove that their ideas have validity, science cannot catch up.

Fortunately, science does not wait for frauds to volunteer to be disproven. Reiki has been tested. It is bunkum.


Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Here's another for you. Physician sit down next to me, stating that she has a bad headache. I ask if I can hold one hand and nothing more. She's writing with her other hand, and after about 45 secs or so, asks, "are you making my headache go away." Why did she have to ask?

This is why double-blind testing is superior. If you had agreed in advance that Reiki could cure headaches, and your physician friend did not know that you did Reiki, we could have a better idea whether or not you were simply using the placebo effect on her, or if there were really some mysterious energy working on her.

Of course, we would need to have a control group where someone held the hand of a headache victim and told them convincingly that they were doing magic therapy on them to cure their headache, so we could tell if there was any real effect. Headaches tend to go away on their own without Reiki energy, after all.

What you have produced is anecdotal evidence, which is not very strong. We do not know from your description if your physician friend's headache actually went away, if it was because you held her hand, because she had taken an aspirin shortly before talking to you, if there was really some magic energy flowing out of your hand, or if (no offense) you held the hand of a woman, she smiled at you and said she felt better, and then went home and told her husband that "There is some crackpot at work who claims to have magic healing powers. I told him he helped my headache, because he is a nice guy and I don't like to laugh at his nonsense to his face."

We are dealing with real issues here. Susie Woo Woo claims to charge $40 an hour. That is money that could go to some real form of medicine, or towards reducing the cost of medical treatment so that more people could afford it. Pushing nonsense on people does some real harm, even if the quack recommends that his patients get real treatment in addition to his snake oil.

We should not be lying to people, even with the best intentions. And especially we should not be charging them for things that don't work.

There are a lot cheaper ways to bring about the placebo effect than $40 per hour.

Randall Sexton
27th March 2003, 19:56
From Tony
Evidence?

My wife just confirm that I wasn't dreaming. I'll check the website of that newspaper and see if there is an archives section. Later.

Randall Sexton
27th March 2003, 20:12
Originally posted by Bob Why did she have to ask?

Reckon she just wanted to make sure it was me (at that precise moment in time)instead of some magic power. LOL.


This is why double-blind testing is superior.

I'm familar with research; quit boring me.


Headaches tend to go away on their own without Reiki energy, after all.

Yes, we experience lot's of relief at the time we're around...course that means absolutely nothing.


snip> you held the hand of a woman, she smiled at you and said she felt better

Yes, since this has happened so much to me during my life, I guess I should volunteer for some research...naw, I'll just experience it!



I told him he helped my headache, because he is a nice guy and I don't like to laugh at his nonsense to his face."

Usually they drag me around to see a patient or refer one to me that is not getting any relief. And I usually tell them never to tell their husbands about me.

Randall Sexton
27th March 2003, 20:27
We are dealing with real issues here. Susie Woo Woo claims to charge $40 an hour.

Susie I charge $60-65 a session. Some friends in Austin, TX charge $75. Depends also on your location, of course.



That is money that could go to some real form of medicine, or towards reducing the cost of medical treatment so that more people could afford it. Pushing nonsense on people does some real harm, even if the quack recommends that his patients get real treatment in addition to his snake oil.

Real form of medicine? Doctors (of any modality) must touch their patients. In some cultures, physicians were required to learn massage and bodywork before they continued in their studies. Remember the "mind-body" connection! I'm no longer amazed when events as follows occur. Recently, a nurse friend of mine (who had missed a month of work due to a shoulder injury suffered while trying to assist a patient) who had consulted several doctors, received x-rays and a CAT scan as well as physical therapy and pain medication, enjoyed a 90 percent reduction in pain and a 90 percent improvement in movement with approximately 15 minutes of touch! Our cells hold on to emotions and traumas and I see the healing power of touch daily.

Carla had plenty of insurance...so you think she should continue with more of what wasn't working for her? Is that what you're saying? 15 minutes is all it took. Give me a break please! And I don't push nonsense on people. They come cause they are not getting any relief. Give them a break!

JimGould
27th March 2003, 20:36
Nonsense, earlier in the thread it was stated specifically that Reiki practitioners were not interested in subjecting Reiki to scientific testing. Nonsense, please show us where it says that.


If Reiki practitioners don't care to do research to actually prove that their ideas have validity, science cannot catch up. Nonsense. Driving a car is proof that the car goes. If some people here dont want to drive in the car thats thier fault.


Fortunately, science does not wait for frauds to volunteer to be disproven. Reiki has been tested. It is bunkum Nonsense. Please send us the written double blind reports from an official study.


Of course, we would need to have a control group where someone held the hand of a headache victim and told them convincingly that they were doing magic therapy on them to cure their headache Nonsense. Please read the other threads to catch up on this part of the debate.


What you have produced is anecdotal evidence Unfortuneately anything done while you are not there is concidered anecdotal. This does not mean it didnt happen.


Headaches tend to go away on their own without Reiki energy Yes they do but its funny how they always go away with Reiki and sometimes go away after a period of time without.


We are dealing with real issues here. Susie Woo Woo claims to charge $40 an hour. That is money that could go to some real form of medicine Nonsense. People MUST be allowed to spend thier money any way they like. As everyone knows one of the biggest money making businesses in the world is medicine. If people wanted to cure everyone with medicine bottle of asprin would be 10 cents instead of $4. cost price prob around 5 cents. Remember that people can ask for thier money back if not satisfied with Reiki (I wonder how many do?)

Bob Steinkraus
27th March 2003, 21:58
Originally posted by JimGould
quote:
--------------
Nonsense, earlier in the thread it was stated specifically that Reiki practitioners were not interested in subjecting Reiki to scientific testing.
-------------

Nonsense, please show us where it says that.
I did. Read the post. If you are having trouble with any of the big words, ask.

Originally posted by JimGould
Driving a car is proof that the car goes. If some people here dont want to drive in the car thats thier fault. The problem being, as always, that you are trying to sell us a car without being willing to show that it does, in fact, drive.

You are claiming that your secret allows a car to run without gasoline. But you won't let us see the car run. And every time someone asks to have a test drive, under controlled conditions, you refuse, but claim loudly that you drove the car to Poughkeepsie and back just yesterday. Suuuuuuure you did.

I knew you were a Reiki-ist. I didn't know you were a used car salesman as well.

Originally posted by JimGould
Please send us the written double blind reports from an official study. I did that already. Did you need it again? (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/tt.html)

Here is another. (http://www.phact.org/e/tt/test1.htm)
And again. (http://www.csicop.org/articles/therapeutic-touch/)

"Reiki did not have any clinically useful effect on stroke recovery in subacute hospitalized patients receiving standard-of-care rehabilitation therapy." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12614528&dopt=Abstract)



Originally posted by JimGould
Yes they do but its funny how they always go away with Reiki and sometimes go away after a period of time without. Always? Then it should be easily tested, and a genuine medical advance.

I cannot imagine any reason why you would not do genuine testing on your method, if it worked. If it does not, I can only think of one.

Originally posted by JimGould
Unfortuneately anything done while you are not there is concidered anecdotal. This does not mean it didnt happen. What it means is that you are expecting me to take your word for it - the word of someone who either does not or cannot read a thread for comprehension, apparently does not understand the functions of the scientific method, consistently refuses to produce valid evidence for his very large claims, and cannot even spell.

Gene Williams
27th March 2003, 22:20
Tony and Bob, Boys, you have clearly entered a brayin' contest with an entire stable of jackasses. Where Ah come from, we find the mule to be admirably suited as a beast of burden and as a sturdy engine for the plow. However, atop their sturdy legs and strong backs sets a head of iron and a stubborn will. The mule, not being intelligent, has only cleverness as a resource and often times not even the lash will deter him from his recalcitrant ways. Only Yankees and the French will attempt to reason with one. So, boys Ah'd tell you to go find you a nice Southern gal and set out under the magnolia tree for a while, maybe sip a mint julep.

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 22:53
Originally posted by JimGould
Science will catch up one day.
Oh, bollocks. Why not show us where we going wrong now? Because you can't, that's why.
Jim Gould, Nobel laureate--yeah, right! :rolleyes:

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 22:56
Originally posted by JimGould
Saying that someone is taking drugs IS libel and has nothing to do with Reiki. Not to mention all the other made up stuff you attribute to people that they have not said.
So come on and sue me, big boy. I hope you are taking drugs; it would explain all the strange things you say and claim.

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 22:58
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
My wife just confirm that I wasn't dreaming. I'll check the website of that newspaper and see if there is an archives section. Later.
Look forward to it. As I said, this story has been rehashed many times and was also described in Private Eye. It won a Darwin award. But it remains an urban legend.

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 23:06
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Reckon she just wanted to make sure it was me (at that precise moment in time)instead of some magic power.
Well she didn't do a very good job, then, as the test wasn't properly blinded.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
I'm familar with research; quit boring me.
Then when are you going to agree to be tested (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) under proper conditions?

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Yes, we experience lot's of relief at the time we're around...course that means absolutely nothing.
I think there's an even greater sigh of relief when you're no longer around. Headaches spontaneously remiss without woo-woos; claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Get tested, (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) to be sure.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Yes, since this has happened so much to me during my life, I guess I should volunteer for some research...naw, I'll just experience it!
Another cop-out. Get tested, or shut up. Running away like this does you no credit.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Usually they drag me around to see a patient or refer one to me that is not getting any relief. And I usually tell them never to tell their husbands about me.
But you can't be sure they don't. Still no proper double-blind testing. Why am I not surprised?

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 23:12
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Real form of medicine? Doctors (of any modality) must touch their patients. In some cultures, physicians were required to learn massage and bodywork before they continued in their studies.
Don't compare medieval China as being on a par with modern medicine. To do so is disingenuous. It doesn't matter a damn about other cultures. Doctors touch their patients, yes, but they don't claim to be emitting magical energy when they do so.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Remember the "mind-body" connection! I'm no longer amazed when events as follows occur. Recently, a nurse friend of mine (who had missed a month of work due to a shoulder injury suffered while trying to assist a patient) who had consulted several doctors, received x-rays and a CAT scan as well as physical therapy and pain medication, enjoyed a 90 percent reduction in pain and a 90 percent improvement in movement with approximately 15 minutes of touch! Our cells hold on to emotions and traumas and I see the healing power of touch daily.
More anecdote. Without proper double-blinding, such tales are worthless. You have proven nothing. Further, you can't have a statistical sample of one. You need to learn some more science before regaling us with this nonsense, Randall.

Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Carla had plenty of insurance...so you think she should continue with more of what wasn't working for her? Is that what you're saying? 15 minutes is all it took. Give me a break please! And I don't push nonsense on people. They come cause they are not getting any relief. Give them a break!
No, 15 minutes is NOT what it took. It's what you CLAIM it took. See the difference? I'd like to meet this patient myself, but only in a proper controlled environment. So far, Randall, you haven't controlled a single environment, which makes every purported healing by you to be a lie. Now, get tested (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) properly, and we'll see.

Kimpatsu
27th March 2003, 23:14
Originally posted by Gene Williams
...Ah'd tell you to go find you a nice Southern gal and set out under the magnolia tree for a while, maybe sip a mint julep.
I used to date a Texan. :cool:

Gene Williams
27th March 2003, 23:30
Well, Ah'm proud to hear it, son. The ole Lone Star State certainly produces a fine pedigree of women...they say ever'thin' is big in Texas, if you'll pardon my levity, and I understand those Texas gals ride real well, easy in the saddle, if you know what I mean. Now, after plowin' with a fine Texas heifer, can't you feel a little mo' grateful to George W. for upholdin' that fine Texas tradition?

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 00:01
I think GWB wrecks that tradition.
And yes, she was a little big, and veerrrryyy easy in the saddle, if you know what I mean.
But a gentleman never discusses such things.
At least not while sober. :D

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 00:38
Originally posted by Bob Steinkraus
The problem being, as always, that you are trying to sell us a car without being willing to show that it does, in fact, drive.
You are claiming that your secret allows a car to run without gasoline. But you won't let us see the car run. And every time someone asks to have a test drive, under controlled conditions, you refuse, but claim loudly that you drove the car to Poughkeepsie and back just yesterday. Suuuuuuure you did.

Or, as Richard Dawkins put it:

It really comes down to parsimony, economy of explanation. It is possible that your car engine is driven by psychokinetic energy, but if it looks like a petrol engine, smells like a petrol engine and performs exactly as well as a petrol engine, the sensible working hypothesis is that it is a petrol engine.
Well said, Bob.

Gene Williams
28th March 2003, 00:48
There is a woman in the next town who claims to be some kind of spiritual healer. She has opened a spa of some kind and does "crystal massages", that's right, she places crystals of various colors on different parts of the body and burns incense, plays music, etc. Sounds like a pretty classy whorehouse to me:D Gene

'renso
28th March 2003, 00:52
166


Well ths problem is we would come up with the same answer and Tony would still say the same things. The people who do Reiki know that they couldn't do it before they were taught to. After they are shown how they can do it so as you can see this is something that is being done all the time.
Nice thought tho.

No, no, this test is not for Tony, it's for YOU. You just pretend to do reiki, and see if something happens or not. Then if people say they feel better anywa, you'll claim you "can't avoid to heal" after all your practicing? Anyway the experiment, I repeat, would be only for you, as a challenge to your own beliefs.



At the end of the day the only one who can give Tony the answer he wants is himself. If Tony goes and takes Levels 1, 2 and 3 in Reiki and it dosn't work he can sit back smugly in his chair and call us what he wants but until then he is just relentlesly going round in circles. It would be far cheaper, quicker and more effective for Tony to do this.


It would be vastly cheaper (actually, for free) if you tried the little experiment I'm suggesting.

Gene Williams
28th March 2003, 01:21
Ah say, boys, there may be somethin' to this idea that certain effects can be produced without any actual physical contact. I was takin' mah daily stroll the other evenin', when I came upon Miss Bobbie Sue a bathin' in the old mill pond. Now, Ah must say, gentlemen, such immediate changes took place in my physical being...why it reminded me of my sword weildin' days back during the War of Northern Aggression. Needless to say, I was embarrassed by my inadvertent intrusion into this young woman's privacy and, upon turning to steal quietly away, I slipped on some moss and pole-vaulted clean to the veranda. Yes suh, there may be something to this no touch business. Col. Montgomery. 37th Ga. Volunteers '63-'64

JimGould
28th March 2003, 01:41
The problem being, as always, that you are trying to sell us a car without being willing to show that it does, in fact, drive. Blah Blah Lbah etc etc etc Please re read all the threads. maybe you could go and hold Tony's hand when he accepts the challenge and goes and tries it for himself. You must be really dense. How many times do we have to say that YOU should go and try it? What is the point of us testing ourselves in something we know works?

Just bite the bullet and go and try it yourself. Or hmmm maybe you are really scared of this black magic taking over your souls? Mwaaaaaaaahahahahaha

GO AND TRY IT ........

Gene Williams
28th March 2003, 01:49
But, Jim, that is why we have science. Subjective experience is very unreliable when it comes to proving something works. Wishful thinking, misperception, flawed procedure, and a hundred other things mediate between our experience and the real world. Science can't be based on "I know it works." We have to be willing to subject our subjective knowledge to objective testing to see if they coincide. That is exactly what scientific method is all about. Science tries to remove the subjective from the equation as much as possible. Gene

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 02:22
Originally posted by JimGould
Please re read all the threads. maybe you could go and hold Tony's hand when he accepts the challenge and goes and tries it for himself. You must be really dense. How many times do we have to say that YOU should go and try it? What is the point of us testing ourselves in something we know works?
You can't KNOW it works, because it's never been tested. You won't accept testing. You BELIEVE it works, which is a completely different thing. As I said, I'm trying to gather a bunch of Reikiya here to agree to testing, but they're as slippery as you are. Rob is right; you're a used car salesman, Jim.

Originally posted by JimGould
Just bite the bullet and go and try it yourself. Or hmmm maybe you are really scared of this black magic taking over your souls? Mwaaaaaaaahahahahaha
GO AND TRY IT ........
That's what I'm trying to do. So why won't you agree to be tested? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) How can I try it if you won't let me in the door? No more excuses, no BS; just contact Randi, and start to create a mutually acceptable protocol.

JimGould
28th March 2003, 02:29
You BELIEVE it works Tony for the first time I agree with you. Yes I believe it works. And in doing so I am happy in my own little world so why would I want to be tes........................... etc etc etc again

Don't want (or need) a million, don't want a nob prize and quite frankly have very hard line views about the starving millions and that's not part of this thread.

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 02:41
Originally posted by JimGould
Tony for the first time I agree with you. Yes I believe it works. And in doing so I am happy in my own little world so why would I want to be tes........................... etc etc etc again
Because you are making unsubstantiated claims. You can believe that god is a banana for all I care--until you start trying to teach what you believe as fact. Then you have to substantiate your claims, or stop making them. Same with Reiki. You claim you can heal people. So show us. Otherwise, you're just a liar.

Originally posted by JimGould
Don't want (or need) a million, don't want a nob prize and quite frankly have very hard line views about the starving millions and that's not part of this thread.
So, you're just too selfish to claim (easily, according to you) the money, and donate it to charity. If you don't want to give it to starving orphans, what about cancer research? Or do you think Reiki can cure that, too? Then how about endowing a trust fund for indigent college kids? C'mon, Jim, it's easy. You just have to show us (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) you can do what you claim.

JimGould
28th March 2003, 06:01
Because you are making unsubstantiated claims Not at all


Then you have to substantiate your claims, or stop making them No I don't


You claim you can heal people. So show us. Otherwise, you're just a liar. No i'm Not. Just because Tony has not seen it does not make anyone a Liar. You may claim I am a liar but you have NO proof. You are working on the reverse of your quote 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' (whether you originated it does not matter. You placed it on view as a point in your favour on Ebudo therefor you must believe it).


So, you're just too selfish to claim (easily, according to you) the money, and donate it to charity. If you don't want to give it to starving orphans, what about cancer research? etc etc It is not my concern to fund these projects. I have other things that concern me. Selfish? No Tony but first you would need to know my reasons why and that has no place in this topic.


Then how about endowing a trust fund for indigent college kids? No one paid MY way throught Uni so why should I pay theirs? Why do you think I should give all these people money? How much do you donate each month? No doubt far less than I do. Again not open for discussion in this topic.

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 06:17
Originally posted by JimGould
No i'm Not. Just because Tony has not seen it does not make anyone a Liar. You may claim I am a liar but you have NO proof. You are working on the reverse of your quote 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' (whether you originated it does not matter. You placed it on view as a point in your favour on Ebudo therefor you must believe it).
Yes you are making unsubstantiated claims. You claim you can heal people, but you won't show us. As Rob said, you're a used car salesman. That quote (and for the last time, it's Carl Sagan's, not mine: correct your signature block!) is used to rebut the notion that because skeptics can't disprove Reiki, Reiki must work. However, it is not incumbent on us to disprove your claims. It is up to you to prove them. Therefore, you are using the quote out of context, the emphasis on your part on the "con". How about all the known, proven laws of science that demonstrate your claims are flatly impossible? Are you going to address those? And remember: such address must be in the form of hard data, with equations. Just throwing up your hands and declaring "science will catch up one day" is not a solution.

Originally posted by JimGould
It is not my concern to fund these projects. I have other things that concern me. Selfish? No Tony but first you would need to know my reasons why and that has no place in this topic.
More excuses. If you're not interested in the money, how about a Nobel prize? You would be the greatest scientist of the century if you could only demonstrate what you claim. Your continued refusal leads inescapably to the conclusion that you not only have no super powers, you know you don't--and that makes you a liar.

Originally posted by JimGould
No one paid MY way throught Uni so why should I pay theirs? Why do you think I should give all these people money? How much do you donate each month? No doubt far less than I do. Again not open for discussion in this topic.
You really are selfish. You have the opportunity to provide clean water in Africa, or vaccinations, or a literacy programme in the third world, and you won't do any of those things. Your excuses are hollow, Jim. The truth is, you KNOW you can't win the prize, because you don't have any super powers. That makes you a liar, a cheat, a fraud, and a thief. You're the worst kind of person. You're scum. Now get off e-budo and crawl back under your rock.

JimGould
28th March 2003, 06:27
Tony, I pitty you. You are such a fool and you can't even see it. Now let me see, you are really 13 arnt you? It's the only way to explain your lack of any intelligent conversation and continous cut and pasting from web sites and lies.
Looking fwd to meeting you ;)

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 06:42
Why do you pity me, Jim? I'm the one with the genius IQ and the advanced degrees. I'm the one who's actually studied something worth studying. You are a fraud, a liar, and a cheat. You won't agree to be tested (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) because you know that you'd fail, and knowing such anyway, continue to practice your charletanry. Oh, I look forward to meeting you. You're such an all-round crook, I can't wait.

JimGould
28th March 2003, 06:58
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA who the hell needs Monty Python when we have Tony HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Exorcist_Fist
28th March 2003, 07:29
Can I pity you Tony?

And if I do, will you spot me a beer?

Refer to my new quote.

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 07:54
I find it indicative of woo-woos like Jim Gould that when they can't refute the science-based accusations levelled at them, they pretend to find such accusations funny. I still haven't heard any sensible explanation from Gouldilocks regarding Reiki, he just says, "I believe it, so it must be right. So there!"
Where is the evidence? The double-blind trials? The data crunching? All he supplies is anecdote and now, outright lies. Well, Jimmy boy, I shall always be on these boards to give you and your lies a hard time. Every time you post nonsense, I shall point it out. Now won't that be fun?
Dan: Rather than pity me, buy me a beer. Here's a quote to top yours:

It is characteristic of thoughtful people that they don't understand some things that to others are as plain as a pikestaff.
A. G. Cairns-Smith
Best,

JimGould
28th March 2003, 08:00
Oh now I am really disapointed. That the best you and your super brain can do Tony? Not much is it?

Please post a copy of your Mensa Test Results to prove your claim re IQ Level
;)

Kimpatsu
28th March 2003, 08:23
Originally posted by JimGould
Oh now I am really disapointed. That the best you and your super brain can do Tony? Not much is it?
I have to make sure you can understand it.

Originally posted by JimGould
Please post a copy of your Mensa Test Results to prove your claim re IQ Level
IQ of 154 (British scale), or 166 (American scale).
Happy now?
BTw, when are YOU going to be tested? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

JimGould
28th March 2003, 08:26
IQ of 154 (British scale), or 166 (American scale). No, that is anecdotal. Please post a copy of the certificate Tony. Tests done on the net do not count ;)

Randall Sexton
28th March 2003, 09:09
[quote]Don't compare medieval China as being on a par with modern medicine. To do so is disingenuous. It doesn't matter a damn about other cultures. Doctors touch their patients, yes, but they don't claim to be emitting magical energy when they do so.[quote]

Did I say anything about emitting any magical energy? I touch people and maybe you know the proven scientic results from that, perhaps? It can be explained in magical ways (from other cultures) and in scientific terms in modern medicine. Remember the story about the group of blind men and the elephant?

Randall Sexton
28th March 2003, 09:18
From Tony
Well she didn't do a very good job, then, as the test wasn't properly blinded.

So I should have waited to do a scientific study and let her hurt? Sorry, I'm in the helping (health) profession. Study what touch does.

Randall Sexton
28th March 2003, 09:21
From Tony
Then when are you going to agree to be tested under proper conditions?

You still have a memory problem. I am going to be tested.

Randall Sexton
28th March 2003, 09:24
From Tony

I think there's an even greater sigh of relief when you're no longer around. Headaches spontaneously remiss without woo-woos; claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Get tested, to be sure.

Funny how it almost always happens (in seconds) when touch is involved. Study what touch does.

Exorcist_Fist
28th March 2003, 09:26
It is characteristic of thoughtful people that they don't understand some things that to others are as plain as a pikestaff.
A. G. Cairns-Smith

I don't get it.

:D :cool: :D :cool: :D :cool: :D

Randall Sexton
28th March 2003, 09:29
From Tony

More anecdote. Without proper double-blinding, such tales are worthless. You have proven nothing. Further, you can't have a statistical sample of one. You need to learn some more science before regaling us with this nonsense, Randall.

Yes, it's anecdotes. Worthless; your IQ scale just dropped. Wasn't trying to prove anything...got that? Wasn't trying to do any research. Remember I work in a hospital and experience (only word I could think of) applied science everyday.

Randall Sexton
28th March 2003, 09:36
From Tony

No, 15 minutes is NOT what it took. It's what you CLAIM it took. See the difference? I'd like to meet this patient myself, but only in a proper controlled environment. So far, Randall, you haven't controlled a single environment, which makes every purported healing by you to be a lie. Now, get tested properly, and we'll see.

Ok, approximately 15 minutes. It's what I claimed? No sir! Myself, Carla, and the other 4 nurses present didn't time it. Forgot again that I was to do that. Regarding a lie, she quit crying and her range of motion increased dramatically. And no, I didn't measure any angles or degrees of movement. Remember the course of modern medicine that she had been through and the time off of work...lot's of expense there. Study what touch does till you understand.

Sue Woo Woo
28th March 2003, 09:42
I sat back and really thought about this whole discussion.

While I was thinking, my eight year old daughter came and sat down and told me about an incidence at school.
After she finished I thought to myself - here is a child of 8 dealing with a similar situation and it became obvious that the respect the children prove to have of each other and their unique opinions stretches far beyond anything I have seen from the scientists amongst us.
Proof - NO.
Scientifically tested - No it wasn't.
Anecdotal - only to anyone that wasn't there at the time.
Factual - yes but you only have my word for that.

Who gives a sh*t about IQ scores.

An 8 year old proved to me, that sometimes intelligence stems far beyond what is on paper and proven, to what is part of the everyday.

All I ask Tony is for you to answer one question.

Where you born an assh*le or have you just practised the skill for a while?

I'm going to follow a wise example and accept the fact that what I can do with my life is far beyond the reaches that you have ever aimed to achieve.

I waste no more energy on sheeple like you.

I have an educated opinion on the beliefs in my life.

Yes it is my opinion and you are welcome to continue with yours.

I wish you well as an interpreter.

bruceb
28th March 2003, 12:14
How did this discussion get into a baseless "PROVE IT" contest again?

Tony Kehoe.

Why are we not postulating what makes Reiki work or not work based upon how it is used and if clinical studys are applicable?

Kimpatsu.

When will everyone learn that he is not a genius, but a poor lonely man who is not interested talking about subjects that have not had papers published on them because his genius is in memorizing and quoting ... not applying the information to come up with another level thought or research to be pursued?

The sham of drawing people into childish fingerpointing and banter like "I know you are but what am I" style .... well ... it really is poor.

Please....

Enough .... O great genius.

Please ....

I am begging you....

Either use that genius to say something of worth ...


Or, please ... SHUT YOUR BIG MOUTH!!

(sorry, had to say it .... seeing the same exact arguements from Mr. Kehoe in at least a dozen posts is starting to get on my nerves ... as .....I suspect..... it is getting on everyone's bad side.)

How about.....

We explore how Reiki is applied, and how long it seems to work or not work when reviewed with present tests available to western medicine?

Wouldn't that put Reiki in its place, and review the results within the context of present medical standards?

At the moment, I would like to understand Jim's motivation to defend Reiki in the face of the "genius's " poor discussion, who has thus far has poorly responded by returning to his old ways.

I am curious as to what activators are used to encourage the healing process of Reiki, and the means to measure those benfits.

IF this discussion is to really go somewhere, we need to focus on what the measured benefits are, as sited by the users, and compare them to other means of medical treatments.

Could we go there ... instead of the "prove it" conversation of the last couple of pages, eh?

Thank you.

Bob Steinkraus
28th March 2003, 16:21
Originally posted by JimGould
You must be really dense.

Not dense enough to put up with personal insults from the likes of you.

JimGould
28th March 2003, 19:57
BruceB your post makes perfect sense the only problem is no one here is allowed to discuss the topic that the original thread is all about as Tony has to walk all over it.

For John and the Mods...


I shall always be on these boards to give you and your lies a hard time. Every time you post nonsense, I shall point it out. Now won't that be fun?

Tony has made it quite clear (and has done for a long time now) that he will stamp all over everyone else’s belief until we are all Tony clones. How many people who use to come and post on this board no longer do? How many people will you let this fool drive off?
All the people who believe in Ki or God or other such things are leaving this board in droves. I would suggest 50% of the readers of this board believe in Ki but many either will not post about it or are leaving because of their treatment here.
Tony is allowed blatantly libel people here and you do nothing about it.
Would you rather have 100 posters and readers here or one person with a biased blinkered abusive attitude?

For Tony.........
Are you carrying out this crusade of yours on other boards? In churches? In medical centers? If not why not? You are so strong in your disbeliefs.
You must be a sad and lonely man Tony.

JimGould
28th March 2003, 20:13
Not dense enough to put up with personal insults from the likes of you. My mum always said 'treat others as you would like to be treated'
Now go to your room and think about it :rolleyes:

Gene Williams
28th March 2003, 20:50
Jim, You've done some name calling, too. Show us some data regarding people leaving the forums:D

JimGould
28th March 2003, 20:53
Well yes Gene, I am afraid to say I have responded in kind. I would rather have not but sometimes these forums and certain people can bring out the dark side in people ;)

tmanifold
28th March 2003, 22:22
This is beginning to be a little personal guys. This thread has already been reported. Keep it clean and stay on the issues.

Exorcist_Fist
29th March 2003, 01:34
Anyone got the address of a Reiki school in Tokyo? I want to go check it out.

Gene Williams
29th March 2003, 01:41
Hi, Swing by and pick up Tony:D Maybe they will give you a group discount. Gene

Brooks Snider
29th March 2003, 03:20
How do you debate mystical thinking? I thought everyone knew that psychics, faith healers, voodo doctors, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause are and have always been perpetuated by a primitive thought process. Things based on coincidence and a tiny bit of fact can grow and grow, and become fun, but will always remain a process of imagination based on mystical thinking. You know like Chicken Little and the falling sky fiasco.
I do not know Tony but I do respect him. For a person to maintain sanity through so much delusional oppression is a stupendous exercise in cognitive control. I am with him, put up or shut up. And if you refuse to put up, well....maybe Chicken Little could help you.

Sincerely,
Brooks Snider

MarkF
29th March 2003, 03:36
People may have maintained sanity, but it didn't stop them from running out of things to say and resort to personal insults.

This thread is being watched.


Mark

Edit in: You do ask a good question Brooks, but don't expect that kind of reasoning in return.

Gene Williams
29th March 2003, 03:42
Yeah, Mark, but hasn't it been fun to read, well, mostly:D Gene

Randall Sexton
29th March 2003, 07:46
From Brooks

How do you debate mystical thinking? I thought everyone knew that psychics, faith healers, voodo doctors, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Clause are and have always been perpetuated by a primitive thought process. Things based on coincidence and a tiny bit of fact can grow and grow, and become fun, but will always remain a process of imagination based on mystical thinking. You know like Chicken Little and the falling sky fiasco.

And it's kinda amazing that some of these were the original "mind-body" specialists, an idea that has recently caught on in modern medicine. Minus the Easter bunny and Santa Claus of course. You also forgot to list shamans.

MarkF
29th March 2003, 10:45
Originally posted by Gene Williams
Yeah, Mark, but hasn't it been fun to read, well, mostly:D Gene

Yeah, well, I can't deny reading th entire thread, but after a while, it degenerated into a pissing contest, and that gets old fast, but it seems to have moderated itself quite well.;)


Mark

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:36
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
[BDid I say anything about emitting any magical energy? I touch people and maybe you know the proven scientic results from that, perhaps? It can be explained in magical ways (from other cultures) and in scientific terms in modern medicine. Remember the story about the group of blind men and the elephant? [/B]
So what exactly, according to you, is Reiki? I realise you're all at each others' throats claiming superior understanding (for example, when one Reiki master starts ranting about UFOs, Gouldilocks was quick to disown him using the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy), but the fact remains that your core claims is that Reiki uses magical energy to heal. List your supposed Reiki talents, and I'll tailor a suitable protocol to test you. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) All else is pointless.

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:39
Originally posted by JimGould
No, that is anecdotal. Please post a copy of the certificate Tony. Tests done on the net do not count ;)
The test was not done "on the net". It was taken at an exam hall, under exam conditions in London. If you like, I'll take another one. On the same day, you can be tested (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) for your claims.
You still can't hide the fact that you're a liar, Jim.

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:41
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
So I should have waited to do a scientific study and let her hurt? Sorry, I'm in the helping (health) profession. Study what touch does.
Given that what you do has ABSOLUTELY NO medical value, your statement is meaningless. Of course, if you agree to be scientifically tested, (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) you can prove me wrong any time.
Hello...?

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:44
Originally posted by Silent Dan
I don't get it.
Duh... Stop vuying with Bruce for Dumbass of the Year, or Gouldilocks for Asshole of the Year.
There's no way you can win. ;)

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:49
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
You still have a memory problem. I am going to be tested.
When? You still haven't even completed an application form. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)
Do it today.

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:52
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Funny how it almost always happens (in seconds) when touch is involved. Study what touch does.
Does it? Where's your double-blinded data? What you think happens and what actually happens are two different things. I don't care about your woo-woo beliefs; I care about evidence, something that you have yet to provide on this thread, despite it being up to 15 pages long. Oh, and the $1 million (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) is still waiting...

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:54
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Yes, it's anecdotes. Worthless; your IQ scale just dropped. Wasn't trying to prove anything...got that? Wasn't trying to do any research. Remember I work in a hospital and experience (only word I could think of) applied science everyday.
In other words, you don't apply science to something you claim is scientific (medicine). Do the words non sequitur mean anything to you?

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 14:58
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
Ok, approximately 15 minutes. It's what I claimed? No sir! Myself, Carla, and the other 4 nurses present didn't time it. Forgot again that I was to do that. Regarding a lie, she quit crying and her range of motion increased dramatically. And no, I didn't measure any angles or degrees of movement. Remember the course of modern medicine that she had been through and the time off of work...lot's of expense there. Study what touch does till you understand.
This is still anecdotal. Quite frankly, given your behaviour on these boards, I don't believe you. I think you're past disingenuous, and are quite simply a liar. You still have not supplied any evidence of your claims, not even with a $1 million carrot. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)
If you want to sue me for libel, like Gouldilocks threatened (and then mysteriously fell silent), go ahead. I'd be delighted. Then you'd have to prove your claims in court. That really will be fun.

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:09
Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I sat back and really thought about this whole discussion.
Did you think about the science involved?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
While I was thinking, my eight year old daughter came and sat down and told me about an incidence at school.
After she finished I thought to myself - here is a child of 8 dealing with a similar situation and it became obvious that the respect the children prove to have of each other and their unique opinions stretches far beyond anything I have seen from the scientists amongst us.
Danger alert: more anecdote (which has no place in science), and threat of homespun wisdom, rather than double-blinded testing, and real evidence. Have you ever studied ANY science, Sue?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Proof - NO.
Then stop right there. This is not longer admissable in the court of science.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Scientifically tested - No it wasn't.
Then why are you even bothering telling us this?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Anecdotal - only to anyone that wasn't there at the time.
The very definition of anecdotal. Where on earth DID you study science, Sue?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Factual - yes but you only have my word for that.
Then it is NOT factual. By your own admission, it's only a story, like Cinderella.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Who gives a sh*t about IQ scores.
Hans J. Eynsenck, for one. ;)
BTW, they're great for putting on university application forms... Oh, did you not go to university?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
An 8 year old proved to me, that sometimes intelligence stems far beyond what is on paper and proven, to what is part of the everyday.
But Sue, you are so easily bamboozled.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
All I ask Tony is for you to answer one question.
OK.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Where you born an assh*le or have you just practised the skill for a while?
I am pleased to see that Sue is using my line, which I have used on these boards long before she even joined. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery, after all... (I was going to mention ad hominem, but I figure that by now, Sue really doesn't know what the term means.)

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I'm going to follow a wise example and accept the fact that what I can do with my life is far beyond the reaches that you have ever aimed to achieve.
I have more knowledge, power, intelligence, and skill than you. Idiots like you, Sue, just make up the numbers.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I waste no more energy on sheeple like you.
Does that mean you won't be coming back to plague us with your nonsense any more?

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I have an educated opinion on the beliefs in my life.
Your opinion is clearly not eductaed.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
Yes it is my opinion and you are welcome to continue with yours.
You are not entitled to your opinion; you are entitled to an INFORMED opinion.

Originally posted by Sue Woo Woo
I wish you well as an interpreter.
Better than being a Reiki woo-woo.
Yet again, a lengthy rant from you, with no data, no evidence, or anything remotely resembling a scientific test. Now, why am I not surprised...? :rolleyes:

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:12
Originally posted by bruceb
How did this discussion get into a baseless "PROVE IT" contest again?
"Prove it" is far from baseless. It is the essence of science.
Oh, but you woo-woos don't understand science, do you?
Still taking the Thorazine, Bruce?

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:16
Originally posted by JimGould
BruceB your post makes perfect sense the only problem is no one here is allowed to discuss the topic that the original thread is all about as Tony has to walk all over it.
Your ad hominem attacks aside, Gouldilocks, the facts are these: You have made a claim. You refuse to demonstrate said claim. Instead you bluster, threaten, and badmouth me. That makes you a liar, a windbag, and a cheat. I'm going to be here every time you repeat your lies, to remind other readers of what kind of scum you are. You once threatened to sue me. Please do. Then you'll have to prove in court that your claims are true. I look forward to that day immensely.
Oh, and really... Bruce is universally known to be the biggest fruitloop on these boards. And you side with him? Goes to show just how sad you really are...
So, when are you going to be tested? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:20
Originally posted by JimGould
My mum always said 'treat others as you would like to be treated'
Now go to your room and think about it
My mother always said, "Stand up to bullies and liars".
Now crawl back under your rock and think about THAT...

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:22
Originally posted by JimGould
Well yes Gene, I am afraid to say I have responded in kind. I would rather have not but sometimes these forums and certain people can bring out the dark side in people ;)
Like you, clearly. :rolleyes:
When are you going to show us your data? (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:25
Originally posted by tmanifold
This is beginning to be a little personal guys. This thread has already been reported. Keep it clean and stay on the issues.
The issue is that these woo-woos won't supply proof when asked. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)
Evidence from them will settle this issue immediately. Did you report THAT?

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:28
Originally posted by Gene Williams
Hi, Swing by and pick up Tony:D Maybe they will give you a group discount. Gene
I'm well willing to go. I will just not pay money to be "reikied" (i.e., have absolutely nothing done) by these idiots. If they agree to be tested, (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) though, then I'll be delighted.

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:30
Originally posted by MarkF
This thread is being watched.
Ah, but are you going to put your money where your mouth is, Mark, and insist these woo-woos either supply evidence or quit the boards? Or are you "watching" in the same way as Jerry Springer does?

Kimpatsu
29th March 2003, 15:33
Originally posted by Randall Sexton
And it's kinda amazing that some of these were the original "mind-body" specialists, an idea that has recently caught on in modern medicine. Minus the Easter bunny and Santa Claus of course. You also forgot to list shamans.
And when has a shaman EVER demonstrated medical knowledge?
The above paragraph is yet more evidence of fallacious thinking.
Look, Randy, you can settle this debate immediately. Just get tested. (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) What could be easier?

Gene Williams
29th March 2003, 17:07
Damn Tony, You get as nasty on this thread as we got on the Liberal Rant thread. Lindsey closed that one down:D Of course, I agree with you 100%. Sometimes nasty is appropriate. Watch out, though, someone may call you a scientific jingoist. Gene

JimGould
29th March 2003, 19:04
I see Blondie's been on the beer again. Most of all of the above crap he posted is either AH, Lies or more libel (btw I didn’t threaten to sue you but I could, so even more lies). Crap, or downright stupidity.
Tony is a sad sad muppet and I will waste no more time here.
I didn’t go quiet Blondie I just became bored with you and your little games. Your are the biggest idiot it has ever been my misfortune to come across.
Go back to the bar Tony, maybe you can join your loser friends down there and kill some more of the few brain cells you have. (I see you lied through your teeth about the IQ test.) You are fooling no one.

Wouldn't you think the nick name blondie was the kind of name a homosexual would use? Makes you wonder don't it ;) I'll leave you all with that thought. :D

bruceb
29th March 2003, 19:32
Mr. Kehoe does resemble Sam Eagle of Muppet fame, doesn't he?

Excuse me, but with two pages of retorts, this has turned into the Tony Kehoe rant thread ...

Why are you mad, Mr. Kehoe?

Doesn't your superior intellect rationalize your emotional balance?

Maybe some deep meditation, and few hours of comic books and Japanese Aname' will calm that violent temper?

Of course, if we are reverting back to deep meditation as a means to activate the healing of Reiki, and those means to use Reiki uses the parts of the mind that separate one from reality .... little aliens might not seem so far fetched for the Reiki master, eh?

Oh, look ...

Master has detatched from reality to tap into the physical prompts that cause heat and energy to be generated for his hands...

... which in itself is impossible for normal thinking human beings, so why not ..... why not have thoughts that are coded, or so obscure they seem quite insane?

I would say, for the great Reiki debate, Mr. Kehoe detaches himself from the subject and never returns to the discussion is a low level form or this non-reality easily identified by his distinctive manner of insults, and lack of open discussion.

Well....

I would bet none of you saw that coming, that Mr. Kehoe was approaching the thought process of a Reiki master in the form of uncontrolled angry responses? Taking a real discussion and thowing so much none related data or diverting insuts in to the mix, no one remembers what the original subject was.

If that is the means to genius, I would rather be average.

Give Tony ten more years to get into his late fortys to start to feel his mortality, and I will bet he has a revalation in his thought process. (If he can stop drinking any type of alcohol for a couple of years, which really screws up your thinking.)

Everybody help me out here...

Raise your hands....

Close your eyes....

and think of a devil sticking his pitchfork into Mr. Kehoe's butt!

Go Devil! Go Devil! Yo Devil! Go!!!

Do you feel the love of everyone raising you out of your chair, Mr. Tony! Halleleuiah!

Jump up! Feel the Reiki energy, raising you up!

( Please allow time for intermittent relief, and pitch fork prompting as each time zone joins in to send the love we all have for Mr. Tony.)

It ain't Reiki, but its the best we can do on short notice.

tmanifold
29th March 2003, 19:43
Tony Kehoe, please read this.
"Profanity will not be tolerated."

It is at the bottom of every page. You have been warned.

JimGould. Insinuating some one is a homosexual is not "treating your fellow E-budo members with respect". You also have been warned.

To everyone else in this thread that I didn't catch. This thread is being watched by a couple of Mods now so tread carefully. Discussion is good, disagreement is good, Personal attacks and profanity are not.

JimGould
29th March 2003, 19:49
JimGould. Insinuating some one is a homosexual is not "treating your fellow E-budo members with respect". You also have been warned Sir, I did no such thing ;)


"treating your fellow E-budo members with respect". And Tony does this when?


To everyone else in this thread that I didn't catch. This thread is being watched by a couple of Mods now so tread carefully. Discussion is good, disagreement is good, Personal attacks and profanity are not. Many of us would like to have a good discussion but Tony refuses to allow it.

Gene Williams
29th March 2003, 20:07
Why doesn't one of you "mods" just close this thread? It has run far too long and is to the point of nananana-boo-boo. Gene

JimGould
29th March 2003, 20:31
I have been sent a PM by a mod about my post. I would like to state for the record that I never said Tony was a Homosexual. I am sorry if this caused embarrasement to Tony, his wife and his lovely children but it was meant as a little light hearted entertainment. While I am at it I would like to appologise for all the nasty, malicious and otherwise evil things I have said to Tony and anyone else in this and other related threads. :smilejapa

Now can we get back to the libel, slander, verbal abuse, threats of physical attack and lies .. thank You