Re:Looking For Evidence of Effects

[Guest guest]

One of the large problems that many people have is thier training stands in

the way of understanding alternative explanations and treatments. In other

words, their educational success was predicated upon excelling within a

certain philosophical model. As they left their schooling behind, these same

people then became part of an accepted paradigm in which they could earn a

living. This paradigm/model is primarily biochemical. Proofs, utilization,

explanations, treatments, and research is all based upon what furthers the

biochemical model.

Due to behavior and mental programming, many find it difficult to think

outside this model.

Please look up the Gables Lab reports and other correspondence found on Stan

Trumans web site: http://www.rife/.org . Sad to say a lot of supporting

evidence for Rife's work has either been lost, or is being hoarded by people

looking for some financial gain. A good 1000 pages of material has been

released to the public domain in the past few years. There are many times

this amount of material still in private hands. The US FDA by law may allow

the use of anectdotal evidence for approval of devices and medication. Since

they " may " they chose not to. This cuts off the ability of the natural

health care professions to develop new devices and products.

>If so, on what evidence do you base your faith and confidence

>in this modality?

In the United States, a good 25% of the primary health care practitioners

do not adhere to a medical model. A total that comes as a shock to many

people steeped in the biochemical model. There are 62,000 Chiropractors,

83,000 Massage Therapists with another 10,000 in school. There are totaled,

tens of thousands of Naturopaths, Herbalists, Acupuncturists,

Kinesiologists, and Nutritionists. There are tens of thousands that might be

classified as " intention healers " . Shamans, Medicine men/women, Curanderos,

ministers, priests, magnetic healers, holy people and others of thier like.

There are thousands of people trained in the biological sciences that use

their knowledge to heal using non medical therapies. All together, I

estimate a good 250,000 professionals of all types use non medical means to

treat and heal well over 70 million Americans every year.

All of these different healing professions and methods are primarily

empirically based. These methods have different non medical terminologies

that explain the initiation, diagnosis and treatment of disease. Often the

condition is given a non medical name. In spite of the fact that 25+% of

taxpaying Americans utilize non medical treatments as their primary health

care, 100% of thier tax monies and charitable donations go to fund only

medical research. People don't necessarily want a " medical " solution, they

just want their health care problems solved.

The lack of research money has lead to an entirely different form of " proof "

than that utilized by the medical model. This form works very well, and in

the case of Acupuncture and Herbalism, has been in practice for thousands of

years . This method of proof is accepted with validity within the non

medical professions. Outcome based therapies are the true arbitrar of

clinical success. What works is passed within the profession through the

schools, journals, symposia and other means of communication. A bit arcane,

but a method that is extremely effective. The medical profession even uses

this method to some extent. Surgery is a prime example.

Reality can never be disproved by science, science can only be used to

explain a reality. A lack of so called science has nothing to do with

assigning a lack of reality. Reality is never lacking, it is only science

that lacks an adequate explanation for the observed reality. People make

scientific spoofs of Radionics, Chiropractic, Therapeutic Touch,

Acupuncture, Naturopathy, Homeopathy and on and on and on. This is an abuse

of science, for science is being used to disprove reality. In so doing,

science passes into the realm of self delusion which is then used for

economic oppression.

> Surely those people who

>are excited about Rifes work should conduct their own trials to

>extract a truly objective appraisal.

The oppression of clinical trials for non pharmaceutical treatment of

disease is a reality that is unknown to the general public. I personally

have had this happen, as have at least two other groups/people I am aware of.

>This would help legitimise this

>modality and lift it above it's current reputation as little more

>than a curiosity.

For those that have used a frequency device to restore their health, there

is no curiosity. Right now in the US there are at least 400,000 frequency

devices of all types. Not a one is medically appoved, nor are they FDA, FTC

or Postal Service approved. Acceptance of Electrotherapeutics is growing

without medical, government, or media approval. The reason?, They work! As

to why they work, well one needs research money for that. Research money

would also help to delineate for what they work. A lot of confusion about

that presently! There are medical devices, and then there are devices used

for healing which are non medical and used by the natural health care

professions. There is a distinction!

>There are no legal impediments to private trialing

Human or animal clinical trials are subject to strict guidelines and review.

The cost of a clinical trial on what the FDA has so far classified as a

Class III device is phenominal.

The opressive forces that maintain economic supremacy of the medical model

can be brutal to those that would challenge them. The AMA has lost at least

3 and possibly 4 anti trust suits. Multi time convicted of monopolistic

practices, the AMA and it's associates serve only themselves. How many

natural health care practitioners are consultants, associates, or employees

of the FDA or FTC? The answer is a big ZERO.

Every healing profession is unique and has their own philosophy of

treatment. They arrive at healing of their patients thorough different

means. 25 % of the public money that should be going to research within the

natural health care professions is bled off to fund the medical monopoly.

The NIH last year spent 25 billion dollars on research. About 1/100,000th of

that ( which is better than it used to be! ) got spent in natural health

care schools.

E. Bare, D.C.

[Guest guest]

One of the large problems that many people have is thier training stands in

the way of understanding alternative explanations and treatments. In other

words, their educational success was predicated upon excelling within a

certain philosophical model. As they left their schooling behind, these same

people then became part of an accepted paradigm in which they could earn a

living. This paradigm/model is primarily biochemical. Proofs, utilization,

explanations, treatments, and research is all based upon what furthers the

biochemical model.

Due to behavior and mental programming, many find it difficult to think

outside this model.

Please look up the Gables Lab reports and other correspondence found on Stan

Trumans web site: http://www.rife/.org . Sad to say a lot of supporting

evidence for Rife's work has either been lost, or is being hoarded by people

looking for some financial gain. A good 1000 pages of material has been

released to the public domain in the past few years. There are many times

this amount of material still in private hands. The US FDA by law may allow

the use of anectdotal evidence for approval of devices and medication. Since

they " may " they chose not to. This cuts off the ability of the natural

health care professions to develop new devices and products.

>If so, on what evidence do you base your faith and confidence

>in this modality?

In the United States, a good 25% of the primary health care practitioners

do not adhere to a medical model. A total that comes as a shock to many

people steeped in the biochemical model. There are 62,000 Chiropractors,

83,000 Massage Therapists with another 10,000 in school. There are totaled,

tens of thousands of Naturopaths, Herbalists, Acupuncturists,

Kinesiologists, and Nutritionists. There are tens of thousands that might be

classified as " intention healers " . Shamans, Medicine men/women, Curanderos,

ministers, priests, magnetic healers, holy people and others of thier like.

There are thousands of people trained in the biological sciences that use

their knowledge to heal using non medical therapies. All together, I

estimate a good 250,000 professionals of all types use non medical means to

treat and heal well over 70 million Americans every year.

All of these different healing professions and methods are primarily

empirically based. These methods have different non medical terminologies

that explain the initiation, diagnosis and treatment of disease. Often the

condition is given a non medical name. In spite of the fact that 25+% of

taxpaying Americans utilize non medical treatments as their primary health

care, 100% of thier tax monies and charitable donations go to fund only

medical research. People don't necessarily want a " medical " solution, they

just want their health care problems solved.

The lack of research money has lead to an entirely different form of " proof "

than that utilized by the medical model. This form works very well, and in

the case of Acupuncture and Herbalism, has been in practice for thousands of

years . This method of proof is accepted with validity within the non

medical professions. Outcome based therapies are the true arbitrar of

clinical success. What works is passed within the profession through the

schools, journals, symposia and other means of communication. A bit arcane,

but a method that is extremely effective. The medical profession even uses

this method to some extent. Surgery is a prime example.

Reality can never be disproved by science, science can only be used to

explain a reality. A lack of so called science has nothing to do with

assigning a lack of reality. Reality is never lacking, it is only science

that lacks an adequate explanation for the observed reality. People make

scientific spoofs of Radionics, Chiropractic, Therapeutic Touch,

Acupuncture, Naturopathy, Homeopathy and on and on and on. This is an abuse

of science, for science is being used to disprove reality. In so doing,

science passes into the realm of self delusion which is then used for

economic oppression.

> Surely those people who

>are excited about Rifes work should conduct their own trials to

>extract a truly objective appraisal.

The oppression of clinical trials for non pharmaceutical treatment of

disease is a reality that is unknown to the general public. I personally

have had this happen, as have at least two other groups/people I am aware of.

>This would help legitimise this

>modality and lift it above it's current reputation as little more

>than a curiosity.

For those that have used a frequency device to restore their health, there

is no curiosity. Right now in the US there are at least 400,000 frequency

devices of all types. Not a one is medically appoved, nor are they FDA, FTC

or Postal Service approved. Acceptance of Electrotherapeutics is growing

without medical, government, or media approval. The reason?, They work! As

to why they work, well one needs research money for that. Research money

would also help to delineate for what they work. A lot of confusion about

that presently! There are medical devices, and then there are devices used

for healing which are non medical and used by the natural health care

professions. There is a distinction!

>There are no legal impediments to private trialing

Human or animal clinical trials are subject to strict guidelines and review.

The cost of a clinical trial on what the FDA has so far classified as a

Class III device is phenominal.

The opressive forces that maintain economic supremacy of the medical model

can be brutal to those that would challenge them. The AMA has lost at least

3 and possibly 4 anti trust suits. Multi time convicted of monopolistic

practices, the AMA and it's associates serve only themselves. How many

natural health care practitioners are consultants, associates, or employees

of the FDA or FTC? The answer is a big ZERO.

Every healing profession is unique and has their own philosophy of

treatment. They arrive at healing of their patients thorough different

means. 25 % of the public money that should be going to research within the

natural health care professions is bled off to fund the medical monopoly.

The NIH last year spent 25 billion dollars on research. About 1/100,000th of

that ( which is better than it used to be! ) got spent in natural health

care schools.

E. Bare, D.C.

[Guest guest]

> One of the large problems that many people have is thier training

stands in

> the way of understanding alternative explanations and treatments.

In other

> words, their educational success was predicated upon excelling

within a

> certain philosophical model. As they left their schooling behind,

these same

> people then became part of an accepted paradigm in which they

could earn a

> living. This paradigm/model is primarily biochemical. Proofs,

utilization,

> explanations, treatments, and research is all based upon what

furthers the

> biochemical model.

> Due to behavior and mental programming, many find it difficult to

think

> outside this model.

>

> Please look up the Gables Lab reports and other correspondence

found on Stan

> Trumans web site: http://www.rife/.org . Sad to say a lot of

supporting

> evidence for Rife's work has either been lost, or is being hoarded

by people

> looking for some financial gain. A good 1000 pages of material has

been

> released to the public domain in the past few years. There are

many times

> this amount of material still in private hands. The US FDA by law

may allow

> the use of anectdotal evidence for approval of devices and

medication. Since

> they " may " they chose not to. This cuts off the ability of the

natural

> health care professions to develop new devices and products.

>

> >If so, on what evidence do you base your faith and confidence

> >in this modality?

>

> In the United States, a good 25% of the primary health care

practitioners

> do not adhere to a medical model. A total that comes as a shock to

many

> people steeped in the biochemical model. There are 62,000

Chiropractors,

> 83,000 Massage Therapists with another 10,000 in school. There are

totaled,

> tens of thousands of Naturopaths, Herbalists, Acupuncturists,

> Kinesiologists, and Nutritionists. There are tens of thousands

that might be

> classified as " intention healers " . Shamans, Medicine men/women,

Curanderos,

> ministers, priests, magnetic healers, holy people and others of

thier like.

> There are thousands of people trained in the biological sciences

that use

> their knowledge to heal using non medical therapies. All

together, I

> estimate a good 250,000 professionals of all types use non medical

means to

> treat and heal well over 70 million Americans every year.

>

> All of these different healing professions and methods are

primarily

> empirically based. These methods have different non medical

terminologies

> that explain the initiation, diagnosis and treatment of disease.

Often the

> condition is given a non medical name. In spite of the fact that

25+% of

> taxpaying Americans utilize non medical treatments as their

primary health

> care, 100% of thier tax monies and charitable donations go to fund

only

> medical research. People don't necessarily want a " medical "

solution, they

> just want their health care problems solved.

>

> The lack of research money has lead to an entirely different form

of " proof "

> than that utilized by the medical model. This form works very

well, and in

> the case of Acupuncture and Herbalism, has been in practice for

thousands of

> years . This method of proof is accepted with validity within the

non

> medical professions. Outcome based therapies are the true arbitrar

of

> clinical success. What works is passed within the profession

through the

> schools, journals, symposia and other means of communication. A

bit arcane,

> but a method that is extremely effective. The medical profession

even uses

> this method to some extent. Surgery is a prime example.

>

> Reality can never be disproved by science, science can only be

used to

> explain a reality. A lack of so called science has nothing to do

with

> assigning a lack of reality. Reality is never lacking, it is only

science

> that lacks an adequate explanation for the observed reality.

People make

> scientific spoofs of Radionics, Chiropractic, Therapeutic Touch,

> Acupuncture, Naturopathy, Homeopathy and on and on and on. This is

an abuse

> of science, for science is being used to disprove reality. In so

doing,

> science passes into the realm of self delusion which is then used

for

> economic oppression.

>

> > Surely those people who

> >are excited about Rifes work should conduct their own trials to

> >extract a truly objective appraisal.

>

> The oppression of clinical trials for non pharmaceutical treatment

of

> disease is a reality that is unknown to the general public. I

personally

> have had this happen, as have at least two other groups/people I

am aware of.

>

> >This would help legitimise this

> >modality and lift it above it's current reputation as little more

> >than a curiosity.

>

> For those that have used a frequency device to restore their

health, there

> is no curiosity. Right now in the US there are at least 400,000

frequency

> devices of all types. Not a one is medically appoved, nor are they

FDA, FTC

> or Postal Service approved. Acceptance of Electrotherapeutics is

growing

> without medical, government, or media approval. The reason?, They

work! As

> to why they work, well one needs research money for that. Research

money

> would also help to delineate for what they work. A lot of

confusion about

> that presently! There are medical devices, and then there are

devices used

> for healing which are non medical and used by the natural health

care

> professions. There is a distinction!

>

> >There are no legal impediments to private trialing

>

> Human or animal clinical trials are subject to strict guidelines

and review.

> The cost of a clinical trial on what the FDA has so far classified

as a

> Class III device is phenominal.

>

> The opressive forces that maintain economic supremacy of the

medical model

> can be brutal to those that would challenge them. The AMA has lost

at least

> 3 and possibly 4 anti trust suits. Multi time convicted of

monopolistic

> practices, the AMA and it's associates serve only themselves. How

many

> natural health care practitioners are consultants, associates, or

employees

> of the FDA or FTC? The answer is a big ZERO.

>

> Every healing profession is unique and has their own philosophy of

> treatment. They arrive at healing of their patients thorough

different

> means. 25 % of the public money that should be going to research

within the

> natural health care professions is bled off to fund the medical

monopoly.

> The NIH last year spent 25 billion dollars on research. About

1/100,000th of

> that ( which is better than it used to be! ) got spent in natural

health

> care schools.

>

>

>

> E. Bare, D.C.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

, thank you for your reply. It was quite depressing and your

exasperation is evident. However I strongly disagree with several

points that you make. However rather that launch into a lenghthy

debate, let me ask you this. Do you have any evidence that any of

these " intention healers " have significantly reversed a serious

disease in a patient. If you do please tell me,better still publish

the case in detail. However the evidence that would be convincing

needs to withstand scientific scrutiny.If there is a treatment

modality which is effective and is testable and repeatable then the

world should know about it.

I do not agree that those of us in " science " are limited by our

mindset or our training. There are many scientists who crave and

seek new frontiers, and many in the biomed model who are not driven

by greed. .....

[Guest guest]

> One of the large problems that many people have is thier training

stands in

> the way of understanding alternative explanations and treatments.

In other

> words, their educational success was predicated upon excelling

within a

> certain philosophical model. As they left their schooling behind,

these same

> people then became part of an accepted paradigm in which they

could earn a

> living. This paradigm/model is primarily biochemical. Proofs,

utilization,

> explanations, treatments, and research is all based upon what

furthers the

> biochemical model.

> Due to behavior and mental programming, many find it difficult to

think

> outside this model.

>

> Please look up the Gables Lab reports and other correspondence

found on Stan

> Trumans web site: http://www.rife/.org . Sad to say a lot of

supporting

> evidence for Rife's work has either been lost, or is being hoarded

by people

> looking for some financial gain. A good 1000 pages of material has

been

> released to the public domain in the past few years. There are

many times

> this amount of material still in private hands. The US FDA by law

may allow

> the use of anectdotal evidence for approval of devices and

medication. Since

> they " may " they chose not to. This cuts off the ability of the

natural

> health care professions to develop new devices and products.

>

> >If so, on what evidence do you base your faith and confidence

> >in this modality?

>

> In the United States, a good 25% of the primary health care

practitioners

> do not adhere to a medical model. A total that comes as a shock to

many

> people steeped in the biochemical model. There are 62,000

Chiropractors,

> 83,000 Massage Therapists with another 10,000 in school. There are

totaled,

> tens of thousands of Naturopaths, Herbalists, Acupuncturists,

> Kinesiologists, and Nutritionists. There are tens of thousands

that might be

> classified as " intention healers " . Shamans, Medicine men/women,

Curanderos,

> ministers, priests, magnetic healers, holy people and others of

thier like.

> There are thousands of people trained in the biological sciences

that use

> their knowledge to heal using non medical therapies. All

together, I

> estimate a good 250,000 professionals of all types use non medical

means to

> treat and heal well over 70 million Americans every year.

>

> All of these different healing professions and methods are

primarily

> empirically based. These methods have different non medical

terminologies

> that explain the initiation, diagnosis and treatment of disease.

Often the

> condition is given a non medical name. In spite of the fact that

25+% of

> taxpaying Americans utilize non medical treatments as their

primary health

> care, 100% of thier tax monies and charitable donations go to fund

only

> medical research. People don't necessarily want a " medical "

solution, they

> just want their health care problems solved.

>

> The lack of research money has lead to an entirely different form

of " proof "

> than that utilized by the medical model. This form works very

well, and in

> the case of Acupuncture and Herbalism, has been in practice for

thousands of

> years . This method of proof is accepted with validity within the

non

> medical professions. Outcome based therapies are the true arbitrar

of

> clinical success. What works is passed within the profession

through the

> schools, journals, symposia and other means of communication. A

bit arcane,

> but a method that is extremely effective. The medical profession

even uses

> this method to some extent. Surgery is a prime example.

>

> Reality can never be disproved by science, science can only be

used to

> explain a reality. A lack of so called science has nothing to do

with

> assigning a lack of reality. Reality is never lacking, it is only

science

> that lacks an adequate explanation for the observed reality.

People make

> scientific spoofs of Radionics, Chiropractic, Therapeutic Touch,

> Acupuncture, Naturopathy, Homeopathy and on and on and on. This is

an abuse

> of science, for science is being used to disprove reality. In so

doing,

> science passes into the realm of self delusion which is then used

for

> economic oppression.

>

> > Surely those people who

> >are excited about Rifes work should conduct their own trials to

> >extract a truly objective appraisal.

>

> The oppression of clinical trials for non pharmaceutical treatment

of

> disease is a reality that is unknown to the general public. I

personally

> have had this happen, as have at least two other groups/people I

am aware of.

>

> >This would help legitimise this

> >modality and lift it above it's current reputation as little more

> >than a curiosity.

>

> For those that have used a frequency device to restore their

health, there

> is no curiosity. Right now in the US there are at least 400,000

frequency

> devices of all types. Not a one is medically appoved, nor are they

FDA, FTC

> or Postal Service approved. Acceptance of Electrotherapeutics is

growing

> without medical, government, or media approval. The reason?, They

work! As

> to why they work, well one needs research money for that. Research

money

> would also help to delineate for what they work. A lot of

confusion about

> that presently! There are medical devices, and then there are

devices used

> for healing which are non medical and used by the natural health

care

> professions. There is a distinction!

>

> >There are no legal impediments to private trialing

>

> Human or animal clinical trials are subject to strict guidelines

and review.

> The cost of a clinical trial on what the FDA has so far classified

as a

> Class III device is phenominal.

>

> The opressive forces that maintain economic supremacy of the

medical model

> can be brutal to those that would challenge them. The AMA has lost

at least

> 3 and possibly 4 anti trust suits. Multi time convicted of

monopolistic

> practices, the AMA and it's associates serve only themselves. How

many

> natural health care practitioners are consultants, associates, or

employees

> of the FDA or FTC? The answer is a big ZERO.

>

> Every healing profession is unique and has their own philosophy of

> treatment. They arrive at healing of their patients thorough

different

> means. 25 % of the public money that should be going to research

within the

> natural health care professions is bled off to fund the medical

monopoly.

> The NIH last year spent 25 billion dollars on research. About

1/100,000th of

> that ( which is better than it used to be! ) got spent in natural

health

> care schools.

>

>

>

> E. Bare, D.C.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

, thank you for your reply. It was quite depressing and your

exasperation is evident. However I strongly disagree with several

points that you make. However rather that launch into a lenghthy

debate, let me ask you this. Do you have any evidence that any of

these " intention healers " have significantly reversed a serious

disease in a patient. If you do please tell me,better still publish

the case in detail. However the evidence that would be convincing

needs to withstand scientific scrutiny.If there is a treatment

modality which is effective and is testable and repeatable then the

world should know about it.

I do not agree that those of us in " science " are limited by our

mindset or our training. There are many scientists who crave and

seek new frontiers, and many in the biomed model who are not driven

by greed. .....

[Guest guest]

,

The basis of the " placebo effect " is related to both healing via intention

and the Dr.- Patient relationship. These forces are very powerful for they

become a psychological acceptance by the patient that they should get well.

How this subconscious idea of health restoration manifests can vary from

patient to patient. The ability of the treating professional to engender

this state varies. At best this is something those in practice acquire

subconsciously through years of dealing with the ill. Like many qualities

of human behaviour, some people have a natural prediliction for this, and

others struggle to acquire it.

What would be the absolute best choice of people and environment for a

clinical trial? I think that a grumpy, short tempered, ill mannered, poorly

dressed, and egotistical researcher, operating out of a dumpy back room, in

a sleezy part of town would suffice. Such a combination would go far to

eliminate the variables inherent within the placebo effect.

Needless to say it is a verite' that many prescribed medications rely

highly upon some aspect of the placebo effect. It is also a commentary of

exactly how effective many of the illegal substances that plague society

are.

The January 2003 issue of " Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine "

included a suppliment from the i Institute. Entitled " Definitions

and Standards in Healing Research " it is entirely dedicated to defining the

parameters and research methodologies of: Healing Intention, Dr patient

relationships, Energetic Therapeutics, Distance Healing, and Prayer.

Dr. Larry Dossey has written quite a bit about the effect of Prayer and

healing. I was able to attend one of his lectures.There have been quite a

few published clinical trials on this. Several of these ( past two years )

have been published in " Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine " .

One trial that Dr. Dossey mentioned in his lecture was done using people

from a variety of religions all praying for the healing of a particular

individual. There was a statistically different signifcance in healing time

between those who were prayed for and those who weren't. Does this mean

that there was an intercession by divine being? Or does it mean that prayer

is one method through which we influence the physical through our

intentions? Myself, I think the answer is; both are correct

A web site worth looking at is here http://www.issseem.org/

To quote from the web site:

>ISSSEEM was founded to explore the application of subtle energies to the

>>experience of consciousness, healing, and human potential and is designed

>as a >bridging organization for scientists, clinicians, therapists,

>healers, and >laypeople. ISSSEEM encourages experimental exploration of

>the phenomena long >associated with the practice of energy healing.

>

>current membership of 1,450.

, without a doubt, there is a great weakness in treating people through

empirically derived means. But it is all that is available to the non

medical helath care professions. In spite of this lack of research funding,

non medical therapies are incredibly safe. Yes there is an occasional

death, or injury. Such occurances are so rare as to warrant media

attention. In spite of the medical professions lavish expenditures on

research, 5000 people a week die from medical treatment. The news media

doesn't carry this. Can't put 700 + names in the paper every day with a

write up of the how and why.

A lot of MD's recognize how toxic and dangerous the present system is. The

increasing turn to CAM and Integrative Therapies is encouraging ! Many of

the therapies utilized are outcome based, and have very little to no

actual ( scientific ) research behind them.

Yes, clinicals are sorely necessary! There is just no money. An inexpensive

trial is going to run 25 to 35 thousand dollars. This much money would only

give enough data to show that there is an effect. No conclusive evidence

could be determined without a trial costing 5 to 10 times that amount.

Jim Bare

>, thank you for your reply. It was quite depressing and your

>exasperation is evident. However I strongly disagree with several

>points that you make. However rather that launch into a lenghthy

>debate, let me ask you this. Do you have any evidence that any of

>these " intention healers " have significantly reversed a serious

>disease in a patient. If you do please tell me,better still publish

>the case in detail. However the evidence that would be convincing

>needs to withstand scientific scrutiny.If there is a treatment

>modality which is effective and is testable and repeatable then the

>world should know about it.

>I do not agree that those of us in " science " are limited by our

>mindset or our training. There are many scientists who crave and

>seek new frontiers, and many in the biomed model who are not driven

>by greed. .....

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

The basis of the " placebo effect " is related to both healing via intention

and the Dr.- Patient relationship. These forces are very powerful for they

become a psychological acceptance by the patient that they should get well.

How this subconscious idea of health restoration manifests can vary from

patient to patient. The ability of the treating professional to engender

this state varies. At best this is something those in practice acquire

subconsciously through years of dealing with the ill. Like many qualities

of human behaviour, some people have a natural prediliction for this, and

others struggle to acquire it.

What would be the absolute best choice of people and environment for a

clinical trial? I think that a grumpy, short tempered, ill mannered, poorly

dressed, and egotistical researcher, operating out of a dumpy back room, in

a sleezy part of town would suffice. Such a combination would go far to

eliminate the variables inherent within the placebo effect.

Needless to say it is a verite' that many prescribed medications rely

highly upon some aspect of the placebo effect. It is also a commentary of

exactly how effective many of the illegal substances that plague society

are.

The January 2003 issue of " Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine "

included a suppliment from the i Institute. Entitled " Definitions

and Standards in Healing Research " it is entirely dedicated to defining the

parameters and research methodologies of: Healing Intention, Dr patient

relationships, Energetic Therapeutics, Distance Healing, and Prayer.

Dr. Larry Dossey has written quite a bit about the effect of Prayer and

healing. I was able to attend one of his lectures.There have been quite a

few published clinical trials on this. Several of these ( past two years )

have been published in " Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine " .

One trial that Dr. Dossey mentioned in his lecture was done using people

from a variety of religions all praying for the healing of a particular

individual. There was a statistically different signifcance in healing time

between those who were prayed for and those who weren't. Does this mean

that there was an intercession by divine being? Or does it mean that prayer

is one method through which we influence the physical through our

intentions? Myself, I think the answer is; both are correct

A web site worth looking at is here http://www.issseem.org/

To quote from the web site:

>ISSSEEM was founded to explore the application of subtle energies to the

>>experience of consciousness, healing, and human potential and is designed

>as a >bridging organization for scientists, clinicians, therapists,

>healers, and >laypeople. ISSSEEM encourages experimental exploration of

>the phenomena long >associated with the practice of energy healing.

>

>current membership of 1,450.

, without a doubt, there is a great weakness in treating people through

empirically derived means. But it is all that is available to the non

medical helath care professions. In spite of this lack of research funding,

non medical therapies are incredibly safe. Yes there is an occasional

death, or injury. Such occurances are so rare as to warrant media

attention. In spite of the medical professions lavish expenditures on

research, 5000 people a week die from medical treatment. The news media

doesn't carry this. Can't put 700 + names in the paper every day with a

write up of the how and why.

A lot of MD's recognize how toxic and dangerous the present system is. The

increasing turn to CAM and Integrative Therapies is encouraging ! Many of

the therapies utilized are outcome based, and have very little to no

actual ( scientific ) research behind them.

Yes, clinicals are sorely necessary! There is just no money. An inexpensive

trial is going to run 25 to 35 thousand dollars. This much money would only

give enough data to show that there is an effect. No conclusive evidence

could be determined without a trial costing 5 to 10 times that amount.

Jim Bare

>, thank you for your reply. It was quite depressing and your

>exasperation is evident. However I strongly disagree with several

>points that you make. However rather that launch into a lenghthy

>debate, let me ask you this. Do you have any evidence that any of

>these " intention healers " have significantly reversed a serious

>disease in a patient. If you do please tell me,better still publish

>the case in detail. However the evidence that would be convincing

>needs to withstand scientific scrutiny.If there is a treatment

>modality which is effective and is testable and repeatable then the

>world should know about it.

>I do not agree that those of us in " science " are limited by our

>mindset or our training. There are many scientists who crave and

>seek new frontiers, and many in the biomed model who are not driven

>by greed. .....

>

>

[Guest guest]

I've been following this interesting thread - thanks to all the

contributors - but I've been having a hard time trying to reconcile

and validate how a Phase III trial is accomplished. Maybe some of you

more experienced minds can help?

For example, to avoid the placebo effect, a Phase III trial selects

candidates randomly and must then ensure the participants (both those

administering the treatment and those receiving treatment) do not

know whether they administer a placebo (i.e. no treatment - the

control group) or the actual treatment regimen, which would have been

derived from the results of an earlier Phase II trial.

Surgery and conventional radiation treatment would be difficult to

administer in " placebo " form, and obviously the randomized, double-

blind methodology works well for drugs and other injested/injected

supplements. But, when I think about it, does it not suffer from the

same limitations as a patient in a (hypothetical) control group for

open-heart surgery find when they awake and discover no scars or side-

effects from the treatment? In other words, a participants discovery

of the presence or absence of side-effects of treatments almost

immediately removes the blinkers, thus double-blindedness can never

be guaranteed in most human populations. I guess a possible response

to this dilemma is to use placebos that reasonably imitate the side-

effects of the treatments given, except that presumably such placebos

would be required to fulfill similar requirements of the treatments

being studied. i.e. pass Phase III clinical trials! I guess there

aren't too many approved drugs in use that don't produce side-effects

in therapeutic doses.

Is there some publication on these issues that might clear this up

for me?

Any feedback?

[Guest guest]

I've been following this interesting thread - thanks to all the

contributors - but I've been having a hard time trying to reconcile

and validate how a Phase III trial is accomplished. Maybe some of you

more experienced minds can help?

For example, to avoid the placebo effect, a Phase III trial selects

candidates randomly and must then ensure the participants (both those

administering the treatment and those receiving treatment) do not

know whether they administer a placebo (i.e. no treatment - the

control group) or the actual treatment regimen, which would have been

derived from the results of an earlier Phase II trial.

Surgery and conventional radiation treatment would be difficult to

administer in " placebo " form, and obviously the randomized, double-

blind methodology works well for drugs and other injested/injected

supplements. But, when I think about it, does it not suffer from the

same limitations as a patient in a (hypothetical) control group for

open-heart surgery find when they awake and discover no scars or side-

effects from the treatment? In other words, a participants discovery

of the presence or absence of side-effects of treatments almost

immediately removes the blinkers, thus double-blindedness can never

be guaranteed in most human populations. I guess a possible response

to this dilemma is to use placebos that reasonably imitate the side-

effects of the treatments given, except that presumably such placebos

would be required to fulfill similar requirements of the treatments

being studied. i.e. pass Phase III clinical trials! I guess there

aren't too many approved drugs in use that don't produce side-effects

in therapeutic doses.

Is there some publication on these issues that might clear this up

for me?

Any feedback?

[Guest guest]

Cancer trials are often arranged so that one uses a combination therapy on

the patients. A known treatment is used along with the new " chemical " to be

tested. The placebo group is just not getting the test " chemical " , but is

still getting standard treatment. At the end of the trial, the outcomes are

compared and then if warranted, a trial using only the test chemical is

used on a group of patients. The placebo group is still given traditional

treatment, but the Dr.'s have no knowledge what they are adminstering.

Surgery does not have be clinically trialed.

Jim Bare

[Guest guest]

Cancer trials are often arranged so that one uses a combination therapy on

the patients. A known treatment is used along with the new " chemical " to be

tested. The placebo group is just not getting the test " chemical " , but is

still getting standard treatment. At the end of the trial, the outcomes are

compared and then if warranted, a trial using only the test chemical is

used on a group of patients. The placebo group is still given traditional

treatment, but the Dr.'s have no knowledge what they are adminstering.

Surgery does not have be clinically trialed.

Jim Bare

[Guest guest]

> Cancer trials are often arranged so that one uses a combination

therapy on

> the patients. A known treatment is used along with the

new " chemical " to be

> tested. The placebo group is just not getting the test " chemical " ,

but is

> still getting standard treatment. At the end of the trial, the

outcomes are

> compared and then if warranted, a trial using only the test

chemical is

> used on a group of patients. The placebo group is still given

traditional

> treatment, but the Dr.'s have no knowledge what they are

adminstering.

>

> Surgery does not have be clinically trialed.

>

>

> Jim Bare

Thanks for the reply Jim which better outlines the Phase III

methodology for me. I think, however, the " blindedness " feature isn't

particularly strong because it must assume any new side-effects of

the added " chemical " should already be masked by side-effects of the

standard treatment. " New " or additional effects, which are presumably

of interest to the researchers of the non-placebo group, must be

carefully and statistically analysed. Presumably these effects must

remain undetectable by those in both test groups. Nevertheless, my

point is that aside from the ethics involved in administering

placebos in Phase III trials to sick people, it must be very

difficult to avoid the speculation for each patient as to which group

they belong to and any subsequent metaphysical influences (possibly

as statistically important as the placebo effect itself!) that this

knowledge, which may be confirmed by noticeable " effects " during the

course of the trial. This would vary greatly between the individuals

concerned and their ability to detect any difference in treatments. I

would imagine this may introduce a significant factor into the

statistical analysis.

So for those involved in the trial the detection of some new effect

(side-effect or other) might give them a hint that they are in the

non-placebo group, while those who don't detect anything different

might concern themselves with the proposition that they are in the

placebo group and are not receiving the experimental treatment they

signed up for! Our modern interpretation of science and analysis

tends to treat people simplistically, only being interested in those

things they are concerned in measuring and lumping all other

variables into measures of deviation. But we have a better indication

now of how significant is the placebo effect and for how long it must

have influenced trials results and analysis prior to the supposedly

improved random and double-blinded methodology. On the surface this

process might appear to produce better results (presumably for mice

at least), but I wonder if there is not another set of factors that

are now introduced into such trials with human subjects, due to our

innate ability to detect subtle changes and think, coupled with the

fact that they must already know they are either in one group or

another, with no other choices, and must already have some kind of

desire to be improved by the treatment (or they wouldn't have signed

up in the first place!).

Sorry to be so long-winded about this but I do think there is

something inherently misguided in the blind-patient assumption and

that not telling the patient which group they are in does not stop

the patient from thinking nor is it likely to cure their disease!

Just my thoughts and thanks for the feedback Jim. I enjoyed your

talk/approach at the recent Rife Conference in Seattle. Sorry to take

your time with something which is probably so trivial for you but is

a bit of a stumbling block for me right now.

Thanks again and any more feedback from anyone would be most welcome.

Regards

Stenhouse