…although, I do wonder if Geena might not have been 100% decided. I think curiosity is always a good sign.

cheers

If reiki did anything, they would know about it, be able to measure it, and probably invent a machine that could do it better than any human.

How long until somebody shows up with Bengston’s “geomagnetic probes”?

Plus, you rarely convince the convinced, my aim is at the undecided.

You know I was reading the other day that there is some evidence that criticizing a behavior (compared to saying nothing or just making positive recommendations) actually increases the rate of the criticized behavior.

Of course everyone assumes that criticism works….look, I’m doing it now. :0

But, wouldn’t that be kinda ironic, though. If we were all using an intuitive method that evidence showed was counter productive to our goals?

In the United Kingdom (where I live) its fairly common to have Reiki and other complementary therapists there to help patients while they go through medical treatment. Its only a support mechanism and qualified healers do not claim to cure or treat. We volunteer in hospitals and at cancer support centers and its sanctioned by hospital staff.

Yeah, you’re not helping or supporting anyone. Why not just sit with these people and talk to them? Reiki doesn’t exist, even if you’re not charging any money, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

Appreciate that is not the case in the US so I understand your hostility. When people ask me about “alternative” therapies I tell them to listen to their doctor rather than clutch at straws.

…the straws you are providing them. Seriously, just sit and talk to them. Don’t pretend magic exists, just sit and talk to them.

I might believe in something crazy and irrational from your point of view, but I’m OK with that =)

Oh, it’s not “from my point of view”. It’s simply factually correct. They can measure the impact of a single photon on a detector. They can measure distances of angstroms. They are now probing quantum foam. They can test energies to thirteen decimal places of certainty. If reiki did anything, they would know about it, be able to measure it, and probably invent a machine that could do it better than any human. Reiki doesn’t exist, it doesn’t do anything, and my criticism was and always has been that you are a drain on whatever system you interact with. I’m sure waving your hands around and thinking happy thoughts makes you feel better, you probably feel like you’ve got some sort of control because of it. But that doesn’t make it reality.

In the United Kingdom (where I live) its fairly common to have Reiki and other complementary therapists there to help patients while they go through medical treatment. Its only a support mechanism and qualified healers do not claim to cure or treat. We volunteer in hospitals and at cancer support centers and its sanctioned by hospital staff.

Appreciate that is not the case in the US so I understand your hostility. When people ask me about “alternative” therapies I tell them to listen to their doctor rather than clutch at straws. Mortality rates are actually dropping in the UK thanks to early detection (national screening programs) and the breakthroughs in medical care.

I might believe in something crazy and irrational from your point of view, but I’m OK with that =)

Have a nice day and thanks again for the book recommendation.

I will check it out.

I actually find science fascinating (odd for a Reiki Healer)

No, it just suggests like so many people that you maintain cognitive schema that allow you certain double-standards to justify believing in irrational things. You are little more than a jumped-up ape after all, and we’re very good about carving out little areas of our brains that allow us to say “yes, but” and follow it with something crazy and irrational.

If you were intellectually honest, you might try reading some of the criticisms of reiki, and realize all you’re really doing is hoping really hard that someone gets better. You aren’t healing anyone, at best you’re making them feel better about being sick (and generally all you’re really doing is convincing yourself you’re doing something for someone – while taking their money). Just, for the love of dog, restrict yourself to complementary healing and don’t try to convince people out of getting real treatment. You’ll go from being merely parasitic on time and money but health-neutral to being truly dangerous.

But from an observational perspective – some people smoke and get lung cancer. Some people don’t smoke and get lung cancer. Some people smoke and don’t get lung cancer, some people don’t smoke and don’t get lung cancer. You are attempting to use reductionism to explain what we already know empirically, and we’re not there yet.

Besides, there’s no such thing as “cancer”. It’s a term for undifferentiated cell growth, but it is always dependent on the specific mutations at the specific cellular level. Smoking and drinking doubtless have some epigenetic effects that drive certain cancers, and prevent others. So it really depends on what cancer, how much of each, a whole bunch of random chance and genetic factors. Some cancers no doubt manipulate epigenetic changes to potentiate differentiation, deactivating some genes and activating others (more accurately, some genetic mutations alter epigenetics to speed, others to slow, undifferentiated cellular division).

The thing is, we already understand the risk factors at an empirical level (smoking, flatly, increases risk of lung cancer, whether this is due to epigenetic or other means is irrelevant). Some of those risks can be offset by behaviours, others can not – again at an empirical level. To manipulate epigeneitic changes directly is currently beyond our technical ability, and when it occurs will doubtless involve engineered endogenous retroviruses. So for now, knowing the empirical risk and protective behaviours is enough without knowing the precise epigenetic mechanisms.

If you’re interested in a science-based perspective on cancer, you should read The Emperor of all Maladies. It’s great.

I was asking if smoking, drinking, and levels of stress or exercise have an effect on the epigenome. For example, if a particular kind of cancer is genetic, is it possible that not smoking/drinking might silence the gene?

Or the other way around, can stress, cigarettes and alcohol “activate” activate the gene?

Thanks

Regina

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/reiki/

Should also google “Emily Rosa”.

From my very cursory understanding, nearly anything can affect the epigenome, but at this point meaningful changes would be reflected in gross measures of health (i.e. risk of death). The epigenome isn’t magic, and it certainly isn’t affected by reiki.

I’m back now because I’ve been reading up on Epigenetics … My sources so far have been the Science Museum in London, and one of the things they mention on their website is how exercise, healthy diet, and not smoking or drinking can have a positive on the epigenome. In some cases a positiv lifestyle may silence disease genes, etc. I know that epigenetics is still in its infancy but I wanted to hear your thoughts on that in particular?

It also says that the epigenetic markers may be passed on to children. I’m wondering if that means that people who smoke a lot are more likely to put their kids at risk. Or if people who don’t smoke silence that risk before it is passed on to their kids. If my logic has legs to stand on that could be a stronger incentive for people to quit smoking. =)

Thanks

Regina

ps … Is it also true that carrying genes BRAC1 and 2 put a woman at about 80% risk of getting cancer?

In a nutshell, epigenetic control of genes controls if the genes are accessible to be used or not.

Mouse:

In a nutshell, epigenetic control of genes controls of the genes are accessible to be used or not. (As opposed to how often genes that are available to be used, are used.)

As someone who both studies epigenetics and has experience in developing on-line services, let me try that HTML analogy. (Personally I prefer to teach people the reality rather than rely on analogies as they’re essentially sound-bites and invariably wrong when looked at closer. I also hate computer-related analogies for living systems, they don’t reflect living systems well. But all the same…)

Consider web pages that have text and use HTML, CSS and Javascript for mark-up. Let’s not allow modifying the text or HTML tags. (Only CSS attribute modifications allowed!)

The text content is always present, whether it’s presented to the user or not.

CSS, for example, can mark portions as having different states, e.g. emphasised, hidden, etc.

Javascript can modify the CSS attributes in response to user actions, etc.

In this analogy, DNA is the text – always present whether it’s accessible to be used or not. (Shown to the user or not.)

HTML tags are the proteins that organise the structure of the DNA – nucleosomes and the other genome structure proteins. (Like blocks of HTML, some structural proteins organise the genome into chunks that the epigenetic control works on. Nucleosomes could be paragraph elements and the other genome structure proteins div elements, that can contain many paragraphs.)

CSS attributes are the chemical modifications to nucleosomes (HTML tags), that lead to altered states of the gene (block of text) they define.

Javascript code are the enzymes that carry out the chemical modifications (changes in CSS attributes) of the nucleosomes (HTML tags).

Somewhere in there are direct modifications of DNA (like cytosine modification), but like I said analogies invariably break down… It’s already broken anyway as how nucleosomes and the other proteins that structure the regions of the genome work is complex and not linear. (They work in 3-D space, for one thing.) But this is just for fun, right?

For laughs: let’s say embedded code (YouTube videos, Flash, etc.) are (integrated) viruses

@Chris: any conversation that includes both fiber and epigenetics is a good conversation.

Thank you. I am even more intrigued by the genetics coding after reading Spider Silk. I see from the wiki page on silkworms that there is research to get spider silk from them.

Here is the site for the NOVA program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/

I just checked my local library, and it is available on DVD and as a downloadable video.