Posts Tagged Therapeutic Touch

Bastions of quackademic medicine: Georgetown University

The cover of Georgetown Medicine Spring/Summer 2015 issue. This image will drive Mark Crislip crazy, as it features yet another acupuncturist not using gloves while sticking needles into people. Dr. Gorski loves watching Dr. Crislip's reactions to such photos.

The cover of Georgetown Medicine Spring/Summer 2015 issue. This image will drive Mark Crislip crazy, as it features yet another acupuncturist not using gloves while sticking needles into people. Dr. Gorski loves watching Dr. Crislip’s reactions to such photos.

We frequently discuss a disturbing phenomenon known as quackademic medicine. Basically, quackademic medicine is a phenomenon that has taken hold over the last two decades in medical academia in which once ostensibly science-based medical schools and academic medical centers embrace quackery. This embrace was once called “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) but among quackademics the preferred term is now “integrative medicine.” Of course, when looked at objectively, integrative medicine is far more a brand than a specialty. Specifically, it’s a combination of rebranding some science-based modalities, such as nutrition and exercise, as somehow being “alternative” or “integrative” with the integration of outright quackery, such as reiki and “energy healing,” acupuncture, and naturopathy, into conventional medicine. As my good bud and fellow Science-Based Medicine (SBM) blogger Mark Crislip put it, mixing cow pie with apple pie does not make the cow pie better, but we seem to be “integrating” the cow pie of quackery with the apple pie of science-based medicine thinking that somehow it will improve the smell, taste, and texture of the cow pie.

I remember how, when I first discovered how prevalent outright pseudoscience and quackery had become in medical academia (which was before I became one of the founding SBM bloggers), I was in denial. I couldn’t believe it. Then I tracked this phenomenon with something I called the Academic Woo Aggregator. It turned out to be a hopeless endeavor because, as I soon discovered, the phenomenon was so pervasive that it was really hard to keep the Aggregator up to date. Since then, I’ve generally only focused on particularly egregious examples, naming names when institutions like my alma mater embrace anthroposophic medicine; “respectable” journals publish “integrative medicine” guidelines for breast cancer patients; cancer organizations include “integrative oncology” in their professional meetings; NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers promote reiki to pediatric cancer patients or offer high dose unproven vitamin C treatment to patients; or respected academic institutions embrace traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and the quackery that is function medicine. You get the idea. It’s depressing just how far medical academia has fallen in terms of being “open-minded” to the point of brains falling out when it comes to medical pseudoscience.

Posted in: Acupuncture, Basic Science, Energy Medicine, Homeopathy, Medical Academia

Leave a Comment (0) →

Adventures in defending science-based medicine in cancer journals: Energy chelation

My co-bloggers and I have spent considerable time and effort over the last four years writing posts for this blog (and I for my not-so-super-secret other blog) bemoaning the infiltration of quackademic medicine into what once were bastions of evidence- and science-based medicine. We’ve discussed at considerable length reasons for why this steady infiltration of pseudoscience into medical academia has been occurring. Among other potential explanations, these reasons range from the ascendence of postmodernism in areas where it really doesn’t belong; to a change in our medical culture to a more “consumer”-oriented, “keep the customer satisfied”-sort of model in which patients are often referred to as “clients” or “customers”; to the corrosive influences of moneyed groups (such as the Bravewell Collaborative) and government agencies (such as the National Center for Complementary and Alternative medicine, a.k.a. NCCAM); to the equally corrosive influences of powerful woo-friendly legislators who use their position and influence to create such agencies (such as Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Dan Burton) and otherwise champion “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) and “integrative medicine” because they are true believers in quackery; to cynical legislators, like Senator Orrin Hatch, who champions such government programs supporting pseudoscience because he represents a state that is home to the largest concentration of supplement manufacturers in the United States and is consequently a master at bringing any initiative to regulate the supplement industry more tightly to a screeching halt.

As a result of our efforts and the need for a counterweight to the quackery that has infiltrated so much of academia, SBM has become fairly prominent in the medical blogosphere. Our traffic is good, and we have a number of “thought leaders” who regularly read what we write. We’ve even caught the attention of Dr. Josephine Briggs, director of NCCAM, and our founder Steve Novella was even invited to appear on The Dr. Oz Show for “balance.” All of this is something that we are justly proud of. On the other hand, I can’t help but keep things in perspective. While our traffic as a blog is quite respectable and we have become prominent in the skeptical and medical blogosphere and even, to some extent, in academia—we’re particularly gratified at the number of medical students who are regular readers—compared to the forces arrayed against SBM in academia and the media, we have to face facts: We are truly a tiny voice in the wilderness. For instance, we average around 9,000 to 16,000 visits a day. Compare that traffic to the many millions who used to watch Oprah Winfrey and still watch her protégé Dr. Oz or to health media and product empires of people like Andrew Weil and Deepak Chopra, and you get the idea.

All of this is why I started looking for opportunities to respond more directly to incursions of pseudoscience into medical academia. Occasional SBM contributor Peter Lipson provided me with just such an opportunity last summer when he sent me a link to a brain-meltingly bad study about the use of CAM in cancer that shows just how bad a study can be and still be published in what I used to consider a reasonably good cancer journal. I say “used to consider,” because the fact that this journal accepted a study this ludicrous indicates to me that its peer review is so broken that I now wonder about what else I’ve read in that journal that I should now discount as being too unreliable to take seriously. Maybe everything. I don’t know. What I do know is that seldom have I seen such a bad study in such a good cancer journal. Studies like the one about Tai Chi in fibromyalgia or placebo acupuncture applied to asthma don’t even come close.

Soon after this study appeared online ahead of print, James Coyne contacted me and asked me if I wanted to be co-author on a letter to the editor of the journal. Honored by Dr. Coyne’s request, I immediately said yes (of course), and together with Dr. Christoffer Johansen at the Survivorship Unit of the Danish Cancer Society, we submitted our letter to the editor. To my surprise, given the utter failure of past efforts to publish letters to the editor about studies of this sort, our letter was accepted for publication. Last week, the study in question saw print, and our letter was published online ahead of print, along with the response of the authors. All are instructive and, to me, show just what we are up against in trying to prevent pseudoscience from creeping into academia.

Posted in: Cancer, Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, Faith Healing & Spirituality, Medical Academia

Leave a Comment (133) →

Of SBM and EBM Redux. Part IV: More Cochrane and a little Bayes

NB: This is a partial posting; I was up all night ‘on-call’ and too tired to continue. I’ll post the rest of the essay later…


This is the fourth and final part of a series-within-a-series* inspired by statistician Steve Simon. Professor Simon had challenged the view, held by several bloggers here at SBM, that Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) has been mostly inadequate to the task of reaching definitive conclusions about highly implausible medical claims. In Part I, I reiterated a fundamental problem with EBM, reflected in its Levels of Evidence scheme, that although it correctly recognizes basic science and other pre-clinical evidence as insufficient bases for introducing novel treatments into practice, it fails to acknowledge that they are necessary bases. I explained the difference between “plausibility” and “knowing the mechanism.”

I showed, with several examples, that in the EBM lexicon the word “evidence” refers almost exclusively to the results of clinical trials: thus, when faced with equivocal or no clinical trials of some highly implausible claim, EBM practitioners typically declare that there is “not enough evidence” to either accept or reject the claim, and call for more trials—although in many cases there is abundant evidence, other than clinical trials, that conclusively refutes the claim. I rejected Prof. Simon’s assertion that we at SBM want to “give (EBM) a new label,” making the point that we only want it to live up to its current label by considering all the evidence. I doubted Prof. Simon’s contention that “people within EBM (are) working both formally and informally to replace the rigid hierarchy with something that places each research study in context.”

In Part II I responded to the widely held assertion, also held by Prof. Simon, that there is “societal value in testing (highly implausible) therapies that are in wide use.” I made it clear that I don’t oppose simple tests of basic claims, such as the Emily Rosa experiment, but I noted that EBM reviewers, including those employed by the Cochrane Collaboration, typically ignore such tests. I wrote that I oppose large efficacy trials and public funding of such trials. I argued that the popularity gambit has resulted in human subjects being exposed to dangerous and unethical trials, and I quoted language from ethics treatises specifically contradicting the assertion that popularity justifies such trials. Finally, I showed that the alleged popularity of most “CAM” methods—as irrelevant as it may be to the question of human studies ethics—has been greatly exaggerated.


Posted in: Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, Faith Healing & Spirituality, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (5) →

Of SBM and EBM Redux. Part II: Is it a Good Idea to test Highly Implausible Health Claims?


This is the second post in a series* prompted by an essay by statistician Stephen Simon, who argued that Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is not lacking in the ways that we at Science-Based Medicine have argued. David Gorski responded here, and Prof. Simon responded to Dr. Gorski here. Between that response and the comments following Dr. Gorski’s post it became clear to me that a new round of discussion would be worth the effort.

Part I of this series provided ample evidence for EBM’s “scientific blind spot”: the EBM Levels of Evidence scheme and EBM’s most conspicuous exponents consistently fail to consider all of the evidence relevant to efficacy claims, choosing instead to rely almost exclusively on randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). The several quoted Cochrane abstracts, regarding homeopathy and Laetrile, suggest that in the EBM lexicon, “evidence” and “RCTs” are almost synonymous. Yet basic science or preliminary clinical studies provide evidence sufficient to refute some health claims (e.g., homeopathy and Laetrile), particularly those emanating from the social movement known by the euphemism “CAM.”

It’s remarkable to consider just how unremarkable that last sentence ought to be. EBM’s founders understood the proper role of the rigorous clinical trial: to be the final arbiter of any claim that had already demonstrated promise by all other criteria—basic science, animal studies, legitimate case series, small controlled trials, “expert opinion,” whatever (but not inexpert opinion). EBM’s founders knew that such pieces of evidence, promising though they may be, are insufficient because they “routinely lead to false positive conclusions about efficacy.” They must have assumed, even if they felt no need to articulate it, that claims lacking such promise were not part of the discussion. Nevertheless, the obvious point was somehow lost in the subsequent formalization of EBM methods, and seems to have been entirely forgotten just when it ought to have resurfaced: during the conception of the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine’s Introduction to Evidence-Based Complementary Medicine.

Thus, in 2000, the American Heart Journal (AHJ) could publish an unchallenged editorial arguing that Na2EDTA chelation “therapy” could not be ruled out as efficacious for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease because it hadn’t yet been subjected to any large RCTs—never mind that there had been several small ones, and abundant additional evidence from basic science, case studies, and legal documents, all demonstrating that the treatment is both useless and dangerous. The well-powered RCT had somehow been transformed, for practical purposes, from the final arbiter of efficacy to the only arbiter. If preliminary evidence was no longer to have practical consequences, why bother with it at all? This was surely an example of what Prof. Simon calls “Poorly Implemented Evidence Based Medicine,” but one that was also implemented by the very EBM experts who ought to have recognized the fallacy.

There will be more evidence for these assertions as we proceed, but the main thrust of Part II is to begin to respond to this statement from Prof. Simon: “There is some societal value in testing therapies that are in wide use, even though there is no scientifically valid reason to believe that those therapies work.”


Posted in: Chiropractic, Clinical Trials, Energy Medicine, Health Fraud, History, Homeopathy, Medical Academia, Medical Ethics, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (49) →

Eric Pearl “Reconnects” with Hands-Off Healing

I first became aware of chiropractor Eric Pearl through the reprehensible movie The Living Matrix. Several months ago I reviewed that movie and described its segment featuring Pearl as follows:

A 5 year old with cerebral palsy was allegedly healed by “reconnective healing” by a chiropractor who is shown waving his hands a few inches away from the child’s body. Problem: There was no medical evaluation before and after to determine whether anything had objectively changed, and video of the child after treatment shows that his gait is not normal.

I have since learned that Pearl is far more than an eccentric oddball. He is a whole industry. He is teaching his “reconnective healing” methods to others worldwide through seminars in several languages, he engages in aggressive marketing, he offers practice-building advice to his many disciples, and he even foists his beliefs on groups of impressionable young children. I use the word disciples intentionally because there are strong religious overtones to this healing method. 

What is Reconnective Healing? 

“The Reconnection” is similar to therapeutic touch, but goes much farther. He does not need to physically touch patients because they can feel his touch without any contact. They close their eyes and he moves his hands around their bodies but several inches away. They feel a presence, see colors unknown on Earth, and often see angels (one particular angel is George, a multicolored parrot). Afterwards, they report miraculous healings of “cancers, AIDS-related diseases, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, birth disfigurements, cerebral palsy and other serious afflictions.” (more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine

Leave a Comment (16) →

Energy Healing In Maryland

I had an interesting conversation with a reporter today. She called me to get a “medical/skeptical” counterpoint for an article she is preparing on energy healing. Although I don’t know if she’ll faithfully represent what I had to say, we had an entertaining exchange and so I decided to capture the essence of it here. I’m curious to see which parts of our conversation remain in her final article, due out on February 19th. (Stay tuned for that).

Apparently a local hospital in Maryland is now offering nurse-guided therapeutic touch and Reiki healing for inpatients. She decided to interview the practitioners involved, and turned to me for comment. I did not have the benefit of preparing in advance or having references handy – so I gave it my best shot. I’d be interested to know how you might have responded differently.

1. Is there any scientific evidence that energy healing works? (more…)

Posted in: Energy Medicine, Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (73) →

Touched by a Touched Healing Toucher

reiki-hands-pic Recent posts by Drs. Sampson and Hansen and some recent comments have got me to thinking for the umpteenth time about this issue: quackery is quackery, even if it seems harmless and even if some people seek it. This is the first of a series that will discuss it. I’m afraid I will ramble a bit; it may be that not every post will support that premise. Nevertheless, in the aggregate I’ll try to do exactly that.

The posts about Healing Touch sent me on a walk down memory lane, to one of my early forays into “CAM” skepticism. It was there that I discovered just how removed from reality some true believers, even those that project a superficial air of sobriety, can be. Here I’ll recount a brief exchange that I had with one such person, who was undoubtedly well-meaning. My attempts to influence her by the use of reason proved futile.

Shortly after the publication of the famous Emily Rosa article in 1998, I read a report about it in Newsday. It wasn’t all that bad, but my annoyance with mainstream publications giving the slightest credence to “alternative medicine” had been growing, and this moved me to act. I wrote a diatribe to Newsday that was not published (I can’t imagine why):

To the Editor:

“Therapeutic touch” is such obvious humbug that it never should have been taken seriously by anyone with the slightest aquaintance with how things work. Nevertheless, academic careers have been based on it, hundreds of useless papers have been written about it, courses in it have been given and even required of nursing students, grant money has been provided for it (but not used to test it!), and scores of ridiculous magazine and newspaper articles have praised it, apparently to a naive and credulous public. All of this constitutes a huge embarrassment to nurses, a fact that would appear to be lost on their largest professional organization (the ANA).

One of the statements in your article about the JAMA study was incorrect: the practitioners were not able to detect the energy field half of the time. They were able to guess the correct hand half the time, as would be predicted by chance alone. Thus there is no evidence that the “energy field” was detected at all. This is no surprise, because this kind of “energy field” exists only in the fantasies of true believers.

Dolores Krieger’s objection to the study, that the right practitioners were not tested, is disingenuous. She has been asked numerous times, by James Randi and others, to submit to testing of the same sort as described in Rosa’s study (Randi’s foundation has even offered a $1 million reward for anyone who can demonstrate the ability to detect the “energy field”!). Neither she nor any of her trainees or colleagues has come forward, nor has any of them published a single study supporting the efficacy of “therapeutic touch.”

Among the shamelessly fawning, uncritical articles on TT referred to above is one in Newsday by Tina Morales, 7/8/96. Really, now. There are very simple, basic skills useful for evaluating questionable claims. If the writer doesn’t have them the editor certainly should!

Before gentle readers admonish me for the scolding, schoolmarmish tone of that letter, let me assure them that I have long since learned to couch my objections to “woo” in more matter-of-fact, less provocative language. As frustrating as it may be, amiable, well-meaning, intelligent people who haven’t the slightest idea how to evaluate questionable claims vastly outnumber their more savvy counterparts, even in surprising fields: journalism and medicine, for example. Ten years ago I had no intention of becoming more than a temporary, annoying gadfly. I imagined that the “CAM” fad would soon blow over, and that I’d go back to spending my free time watching re-runs of Seinfeld and Law and Order. Alas, ’twas not to be. Patience.


Posted in: Energy Medicine, Faith Healing & Spirituality, Health Fraud

Leave a Comment (18) →