Eleven year old debunks touch therapy
Understatement
On National Public Radio, I heard a report today about an eleven
year old girl who is having (or just had) an article published in
the Journal of the AMA.
She designed and executed the experiment as a science fair project.
She wanted to determine if the claims of nurses who practice so-called
touch therapy could really do what they claimed. I say "so-called"
touch therapy because in the technique, nurses don't actually touch
their patients, but move their hands inches away from the patient,
only touching the body's "energy field."
The focus of the experiment was narrow. She wanted to determine
whether touch therapists could feel the body's energy field as they
claimed. Her method was well-designed. She and the therapists
she studied sat across from each other. The nurse could not see where
the experimenter put her hands, because of a cardboard screen. She
would flip a coin and depending on the toss hold her hand over either
the right or left hand of the experimenter, who would try to feel her
energy field. She studied 22 nurses and none of them could consistently
identify the correct hand. On average, 44% of the guesses were correct.
Statistically, she should have averaged 50% if there was a large experiment
and the therapists were guessing.
She concluded that the therapists could not feel the body's energy field,
which is an essential claim of touch therapists, because they are supposed
to feel the disturbances in the energy field and by touching it, somehow
fix it and treat pain.
Anybody believe in touch therapy? According to the report, it is a growing
medical "treatment" option and universities are now teaching it.
Understatement.
Tom Constantine
Understatement <been...@donethat.com> wrote in article
<beenthere-ya024080...@news.idt.net>...
> On National Public Radio, I heard a report today about an eleven
> year old girl who is having (or just had) an article published in
> the Journal of the AMA.
>
> I think that any benefit derived from "touch therapy" is induced by the
psychophysiologic component of the patient.
> If the patient thinks he/she will derive benefit from it strogly enough,
he/she will. Something akin to cancer
> progression/remission in folks viz a viz there mood.
> I also believe in the tooth fairy.
>
>Tom RN
John Thompson
>On National Public Radio, I heard a report today about an eleven
>year old girl who is having (or just had) an article published in
>the Journal of the AMA.
>She designed and executed the experiment as a science fair project.
>She wanted to determine if the claims of nurses who practice so-called
>touch therapy could really do what they claimed. I say "so-called"
>touch therapy because in the technique, nurses don't actually touch
>their patients, but move their hands inches away from the patient,
> only touching the body's "energy field."
>The focus of the experiment was narrow. She wanted to determine
>whether touch therapists could feel the body's energy field as they
>claimed. Her method was well-designed. She and the therapists
>she studied sat across from each other. The nurse could not see where
>the experimenter put her hands, because of a cardboard screen...
Now, didn't you know that cardboard blocks the "energy field?"
:-)
-John (John.T...@ibm.net)
Beth
I am a believer in touch therapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for,
conventional medical treatment. I did take a course at Ohio State
University, through the college of nursing. My belief is that the
centering, relaxation, and meditation components of the therapy are the real
miracle workers.....not the ruffling and unruffling of energy fields. I do
believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
I believe that some people can naturally do this, and some people can't.
The research results that you cited, in my opinion, could be related to
people that are trying to "learn" this! I don't think that it's a "learned"
thing, but a natural gift! -Beth
WC
Understatement asked:
>>Anybody believe in touch therapy? According to the report, it is a growing
medical "treatment" option and universities are now teaching it.<<
Oh yes, the touchy-feely crowd surface in this forum not infrequently.
It *is* a growing "treatment" option. . . There are still people around
that believe in astrololgy, and there is some fat guy on every tv talk
show (name rhymes with "frog"), who can communicate with your dead
ancestors. He asks certain questions, then refines your answer into a
different phrase, and feeds it back, and ergo, your dead uncle told you
hello! Ah yes, touchy feely has even entered the operating rooms,
and hospitals are charging for a touchy-feely nurse to stroke the
anesthetized patient during surgery. Of course, the charge for the
touchy-feely is added to the bill. In these days of scarce and precious
healthcare dollars, it's kind of absurd, isn't it. At the very best,
"theraputic touch" is the Emperor's new suit shown to us by a 4th
grader, using the *scientific method.* I love it.
David Rind
Beth wrote:
> I do believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras
> in some cases.
It's nice that you believe that you can do this. Do you believe
that you could pass the test this eleven-year-old researcher devised?
The people she studied thought they could. You might try reading
the article in this week's JAMA.
--
David Rind
ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu
Phil Harrison
In article <6ftu8s$ihd$1...@news2.ee.net>, Beth <krnospa...@1st.net>
writes
>I am a believer in touch therapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for,
>conventional medical treatment. I did take a course at Ohio State
>University, through the college of nursing. My belief is that the
>centering, relaxation, and meditation components of the therapy are the real
>believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
>The research results that you cited, in my opinion, could be related to
>people that are trying to "learn" this! I don't think that it's a "learned"
>thing, but a natural gift! -Beth
>
>
There's $1.1 million waiting for you if you can do this:
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
--
Phil Harrison
Rob
Beth wrote:
> I am a believer in touch therapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for,
> conventional medical treatment. I did take a course at Ohio State
> University, through the college of nursing. My belief is that the
> centering, relaxation, and meditation components of the therapy are the real
> miracle workers.....not the ruffling and unruffling of energy fields. I do
> believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
> I believe that some people can naturally do this, and some people can't.
> The research results that you cited, in my opinion, could be related to
> people that are trying to "learn" this! I don't think that it's a "learned"
> thing, but a natural gift! -Beth
I truly feel sorry for your patients. I just hope you someday come to realize
the difference between a believer and a knower. Believing something does make it
real.
axel heyst
In article <6ftu8s$ihd$1...@news2.ee.net>,
"Beth" <krnospa...@1st.net> wrote:
>I do
>believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
>I believe that some people can naturally do this, and some people can't.
There's a million bucks waiting for you if you can prove this.
axel heyst
______________entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate____
Cheezits
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Beth wrote:
> I am a believer in touch therapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for,
> conventional medical treatment. I did take a course at Ohio State
> University, through the college of nursing. My belief is that the
> centering, relaxation, and meditation components of the therapy are the real
> miracle workers.....not the ruffling and unruffling of energy fields.
Does that mean that it is a form of hypnosis, then?
> I do
> believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
Have you ever tested this ability?
> I believe that some people can naturally do this, and some people can't.
I believe that my right does not see as well as my left eye. My eye
doctor agrees with me. :-) That is to say, it is not a matter of belief,
but is shown by testing.
> The research results that you cited, in my opinion, could be related to
> people that are trying to "learn" this!
It could also be related to the fact that they claim to be able to do
something they really can't do.
> I don't think that it's a "learned"
> thing, but a natural gift! -Beth
How do you knw who has this gift? Does anyone who says that they
"believe" they have it qualify?
Sue
--
----- Never spam anyone who mentions cauce.org in their .sig. -----
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Unknown
Cheezits <chee...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Beth wrote:
>> I am a believer in touch therapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for,
>> conventional medical treatment. I did take a course at Ohio State
>> University, through the college of nursing. My belief is that the
>> centering, relaxation, and meditation components of the therapy are the real
>> miracle workers.....not the ruffling and unruffling of energy fields.
>
>> I do
>> believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
>> I believe that some people can naturally do this, and some people can't.
>It could also be related to the fact that they claim to be able to do
>something they really can't do.
I think 'healing touch' has to rank right up there with the healing
touch spouted by tent revivalists, evangelists and other frauds. I
think it's hugely funny that a *nine* year old can understand that a
healing touch is bunk. Out of the moths of babes comes wisdom --
Reminds me of the fable about the Emporer's Magnificent Robes, and how
only a child could figure out it was a scam and the Emporer was
actually naked......
That medical *professionals* would buy into this, in the light of all
reason and proof amazes me to no end.
ceprn at hotmail dot com
Beth
Hi Rob!
Please tell me the difference between a believer and a knower. Please
expand on your response to my post. I am intrigued!
Thanks! -Beth
axel heyst
In article <6fus7n$kfp$1...@news2.ee.net>,
"Beth" <krnospa...@1st.net> wrote:
Hi Beth! I'm not Rob so I'm not going to tell you, but I'd like to hear
what you think the difference is... Please elucidate.
axel heyst
JohnPegase
In article <6ftu8s$ihd$1...@news2.ee.net>, "Beth" <krnospa...@1st.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: Eleven year old debunks touch therapy
>From: "Beth" <krnospa...@1st.net>
>Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:41:10 -0500
>
>I am a believer in touch therapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for,
>conventional medical treatment. I did take a course at Ohio State
>University, through the college of nursing. My belief is that the
>centering, relaxation, and meditation components of the therapy are the real
>miracle workers.....not the ruffling and unruffling of energy fields. I do
>believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
>I believe that some people can naturally do this, and some people can't.
>The research results that you cited, in my opinion, could be related to
>people that are trying to "learn" this! I don't think that it's a "learned"
>thing, but a natural gift! -Beth
>
>
Isn't self delusion a powerful emotion!
Why don't you sumit to the test yourself? Remembering to repeat the test many
times to get enough valid data to avoid guessing correctly once on the first
attempt and quitting.
You can see auras? So you can tell if someone is standing behind the edge of a
wall as you can see the edge of their aura glowing round the edge. Or haven't
you tried this simple test? I liked your conditional statement however -
>I do
>believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
Let me guess, cos I've got special psychic powers too, everytime you fail to
get it correct when asked if there was someone standing out of site at the edge
of a wall it would just happen to be one of those cases when you couldn't
feel/see the aura, due to bad vibrations, negative energies from those present,
phase of the moon, approach of Uranus to your star sign, wrong time of the
month, PMT, evil spirits etc.
Go on, fool yourself some more.
John Wright
Larry Gritz
In article <6ftu8s$ihd$1...@news2.ee.net>, Beth <krnospa...@1st.net> wrote:
> I do
>believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
Golly, if you really have this power, you should accept James Randi's
challenge (see http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html). There's an
outstanding prize of US$ 1.1 million for anybody who can demonstrate
such an ability (better than chance guessing, that is). If you don't
want the money, you can always donate it to your favorite charity,
and think of how important it would be to prove this ability in a
controlled experiment!
-- lg
--
Larry Gritz Pixar Animation Studios
l...@pixar.com Richmond, CA
Carl Fink
On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 12:41:10 -0500, Beth <krnospa...@1st.net> wrote:
> . . . I do
>believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
>The research results that you cited, in my opinion, could be related to
>people that are trying to "learn" this! I don't think that it's a "learned"
>thing, but a natural gift! -Beth
Beth,
You now have two choices: claim Randi's prize (over one million
dollars) by proving you have this ability, or, admit you can't do
this.
Third choice: claim you don't want a million dollars.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"Ready to begin speaking in technobabble, Sir."
Alien technician in "Buck Godot" by Phil Foglio
Understatement
In article <3522f015...@news.primenet.com>, ceprn_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
! Cheezits <chee...@netaxs.com> wrote:
!
! >On Wed, 1 Apr 1998, Beth wrote:
! >> I am a believer in touch therapy as an adjunct to, not a replacement for,
! >> conventional medical treatment. I did take a course at Ohio State
! >> University, through the college of nursing. My belief is that the
! >> centering, relaxation, and meditation components of the therapy are
the real
! >> miracle workers.....not the ruffling and unruffling of energy fields.
! >
! >> I do
! >> believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
! >> I believe that some people can naturally do this, and some people can't.
! >It could also be related to the fact that they claim to be able to do
! >something they really can't do.
!
! I think 'healing touch' has to rank right up there with the healing
! touch spouted by tent revivalists, evangelists and other frauds. I
! think it's hugely funny that a *nine* year old can understand that a
! healing touch is bunk. Out of the moths of babes comes wisdom --
! Reminds me of the fable about the Emporer's Magnificent Robes, and how
! only a child could figure out it was a scam and the Emporer was
! actually naked......
!
! That medical *professionals* would buy into this, in the light of all
! reason and proof amazes me to no end.
!
This is really the baffling part of the whole business to me. Modern
medicine is supposed to be supported by scientific evidence before
a new proposed treatment is accepted and promoted as beneficial.
People trust medical professionals to advise them as to what course
of treatment is likely to help them and ASSUME that the advice is based
on sound research or at least plausible theory. How do things like this
come into widespread use and become part of course offerings at nursing
schools?
Understatement.
Steven B. Harris
In <beenthere-ya024080...@news.idt.net>
been...@donethat.com (Understatement) writes:
>This is really the baffling part of the whole business to me. Modern
>medicine is supposed to be supported by scientific evidence before
>a new proposed treatment is accepted and promoted as beneficial.
>People trust medical professionals to advise them as to what course
>of treatment is likely to help them and ASSUME that the advice is
based
>on sound research or at least plausible theory. How do things like
this
>come into widespread use and become part of course offerings at
nursing
>schools?
Uh, because they didn't have doctors to help them design good
studies?
Actually, I'm sure that nurses wanted some kind of therapeutic
device of their own, and here fell for a magic one.
Beth
Gee, Carl...I'd really like the million...........Could pay off my debts and
such...............
Think you missed something here, though! This is not something I DO
anything with. It is something that happens to me. I do not use
therapeutic touch in my nursing practice, other than the relaxation,
meditation, centering aspects.....which are things I teach to my patients
when they are anxious or tense about a procedure or situation. In labor and
delivery, it came in very handy!
I do not believe that the feeling of fields (which is what the research
focused on) is in any way related to healing or curing a patient). But I do
feel that some people feel fields and see auras, as I happen to be one of
them. It is not a threat to you or anyone else in any way, as I do not
claim to work wonders with it........it is just something I experience.
Unfortunately, it is not an "on command" type of thing. Just something that
happens from time to time and can't be proven! (Maybe it's TIAs :+)
Smiling..............Beth
Unknown
"Beth" <krnospa...@1st.net> wrote:
>Hi Rob!
> Please tell me the difference between a believer and a knower. Please
>expand on your response to my post. I am intrigued!
> Thanks! -Beth
I'll jump on that one. A believer is someone who feels something is
possible based on *faith*, which is internal, whereas a knower is
someone who can duplicate (or has seen a duplication) through
scientific means, which is external. While no-one can prove that you
do or don't feel electric fields and see auras, the fact that the rest
of us can not duplicate your claim, nor can we validate it makes us
very skeptical - if more people were skeptical, old people wouldn't be
bilked out of their life savings by evangelists.
David Voth
Understatement wrote:
<snip>
> She concluded that the therapists could not feel the body's energy field,
> which is an essential claim of touch therapists, because they are supposed
> to feel the disturbances in the energy field and by touching it, somehow
> fix it and treat pain.
The study efficiently debunked an essential theoretical underpinning of
the clinical practice called theraputic touch. It does not prove that
the application of TT in a clinical setting has no effect. I predict
that the promoters of theraputic touch will find all kinds of untestable
reasons why the experiment wasn't "fair", and point to anecdotes and
testimonials if they can't produce peer-reviewed data and hard numbers.
TT and acupuncture both rely on supposed manipulation of an unproven
"energy field". I suspect that the underlying theories behind both
practices will never be satisfactorily proven or debunked. It may be
impossible to prove that an alleged invisible force is not there.
People are always going to be upset when those mean-spirited scientists
and the AMA conspiracy gore their oxen.
The best possible outcome IMO would be the recognition that some
treatment methods provide exceptionally powerful placebo effects.
Research could then get away from trying to prove the unprovable or
disprove the unseeable, and concentrate on understanding why placebos
sometimes work well. This would involve developing a better
understanding of how the mind and body interact. A placebo effect IS an
effect and it can be very useful.
OTOH if the energy field really is there the first person to make a
machine that can detect it will become a billionaire. ;-)
This promises to be a lively discussion.
David Voth
San Diego, California
Andrew Heenan
David Voth wrote:
> he best possible outcome IMO would be the recognition that some
> treatment methods provide exceptionally powerful placebo effects.
> Research could then get away from trying to prove the unprovable
> or disprove the unseeable, and concentrate on understanding why
> placebos sometimes work well. This would involve developing a
> better understanding of how the mind and body interact.
> A placebo effect IS an effect and it can be very useful.
... Absolutely, but by definition, the placebo works because the subject
believes in the 'claimed effect'. Measuring the placebo effect, even though
we all "know" it exists (whatever we might "believe" about TT, acupuncture,
etc) is also very difficult.
Incidentally, there is research on accupressure and acupuncture that shows
a better-than-placebo effect - but no clue as to why!
--
Andrew Heenan
Jeff
What seems to have been "proven" by the 9 year old's experiment is that,
in the subjects studied, the potential cause of any potential benefit they
may be conferring on patients is probably false....i.e. the "touchers" can't
sense the patient's energy.
But this is a far cry from disproving any benefit that the touch therapy
may confer.
Years ago Native Americans applied moss to wounds. Moss contains
penicillin. Their belief in why such moss conferred benefit I am sure had
nothing to do with the drug Penicillin. So disproving the belief backing up
the practice would not have disproved the benefit of the practice.
I don't either believe nor disbelieve in "Therapeutic Touch". What I
have noticed, from benefiting from Shiatzu Massage and Chiropractic
manipulation, is that often the beliefs backing up the practice seem bizarre
and unscientific, while still the technique seems to confer benefit.
The other lesson we may all learn is how research may be used as a
political and economic club. In the world of shrinking reimbursement for
standard medical therapy it must really rankle the emotional-pocketbook
pathway of some to witness the vast amounts of money that citizens spend on
non-traditional/AMA sanctioned treatment options.
Does anyone really think that this research by a child JUST HAPPENED to
somehow find it's way into JAMA on April 1st? Does anyone want to buy some
great land in Florida? If the child's research ha resoundingly found a
strong confirmation of the "toucher's" abilities to sense the patient, would
it have also been published in JAMA? There is a certain irony to all this,
in a way.
Therapeutic Touch may indeed be bogus. But so are other agendas.
Years ago I heard that when a neonatal patient dies the level of TcO2
(transcutaneous oxygen measured on the skin) skyrockets into a very elevated
range. This was at a talk with a very prominent Bay Area Neonatologist in
1982. She related that this phenomenon was observed by many others.
Myself and some other RT's then postulated that the soul leaving the
body must actually be O2. We quickly thought of what this meant for
us----why we could be the "keepers" of souls. Suddenly the liquid O2 tank
could become an object of religious awe. We could wear robes. Perhaps I
could be the High Priest of a new religion that would spread across the
land.
Then we found out that the Prana in Yoga already had this cornered.
Damn!
Jeff Whitnack RRT/RPFT <]:)]====
Palo Alto, CA
JWhit...@classic.msn.com
Andrew Heenan wrote in message <3523BC6E...@unforgettable.com>...
Jeff
Sending this on as a forward, got cut off before
JW
Jeff wrote in message ...
George Gallen
I don't think that is true (regarding not having physicians and wanting
something of their own).
I can't say it works or doesn't work....but....
I can say that nurses on the whole spend far more time with the patient
than
their physicians do (not meant to be demeaning). In caring for patients we
see many cultural habits when allowed, patients feel better. Many times
congregations will come into a patients room to pray for them. Why do we
allow
this, we can't "prove" that it helps, but we allow it, because the patient
feels
better, and when a patient feels better, then there is a better chance that
their
body may actually be doing the work.
Since we (nurses) spend more time, talk more, listen more to what people do
in their spare time, their beliefs, their rituals there is more of chance
that there
would be an intrest to perform some of these tasks as part of our daily
routine
(only problem today is we have no extra time for these), so some people try
to specialize (sound familiar...). Seems that more and more nurses are
attempting
to do rituals that are non traditional (at least to medicine) but not
really that
non traditiional to the patients culture or ethnic backgrounds. Maybe just
allowing
the patient to talk about all their pains and aches and allowing them to
vent may
really be the key. How many times when a patient starts going on and on
about
their pain in their legs, their back....would you "yea yea yea...heres a
prescription"
Is this bad, not really, you just don't have the time to listen, to many
patients,
not enough time. The physical part may just be a performance that occurs
while
the patient is allowed to vent, kinda like the dancing and chanting during
a prayer?
George Gallen, RN
gga...@slackinc.com
Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<6fvbb3$n...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
Peter Pundit
In article <beenthere-ya024080...@news.idt.net>, been...@donethat.com (Understatement) says:
>
>On National Public Radio, I heard a report today about an eleven
>year old girl who is having (or just had) an article published in
>the Journal of the AMA.
>
>She designed and executed the experiment as a science fair project.
>She wanted to determine if the claims of nurses who practice so-called
>touch therapy could really do what they claimed. I say "so-called"
>touch therapy because in the technique, nurses don't actually touch
>their patients, but move their hands inches away from the patient,
> only touching the body's "energy field."
>
>The focus of the experiment was narrow. She wanted to determine
>whether touch therapists could feel the body's energy field as they
>claimed. Her method was well-designed. She and the therapists
>she studied sat across from each other. The nurse could not see where
>would flip a coin and depending on the toss hold her hand over either
>the right or left hand of the experimenter, who would try to feel her
>energy field. She studied 22 nurses and none of them could consistently
>identify the correct hand. On average, 44% of the guesses were correct.
>Statistically, she should have averaged 50% if there was a large experiment
>and the therapists were guessing.
>
>which is an essential claim of touch therapists, because they are supposed
>to feel the disturbances in the energy field and by touching it, somehow
>fix it and treat pain.
>
>medical "treatment" option and universities are now teaching it.
>
All you have to do to debunk the debunker, is claim the experiment
was improperly controlled. As one therapist complained, a "draft"
blew away the body's energy field. There's always some excuse a
fraud can employ to weasel their way out of a tight situation.
Mike
Jeff wrote:
> The other lesson we may all learn is how research may be used as a
> political and economic club. In the world of shrinking reimbursement for
> standard medical therapy it must really rankle the emotional-pocketbook
> pathway of some to witness the vast amounts of money that citizens spend on
> non-traditional/AMA sanctioned treatment options.
A "political and economic club"? Fine. I hope these frauds are beaten
to death with that club. And I hope the next form of quackery that
gains popular acceptance meets the same fate.
As a medical consumer I want to know if the treatment being offerred me
is real, tested, and demonstrable. You can speculate away as to why the
AMA and the skeptics debunk this crap. I just thank them for exposing
quacks and frauds before I risk my money and my health on them.
In my world shining a light on charlatans and con artists is good and
right. I don't second quess the motives of the investigators.
> Therapeutic Touch may indeed be bogus. But so are other agendas.
Great. If you've got proof other "agendas" are bogus, let's hear it.
You'll get nothing but thanks from me.
Mike
Grant Edwards
Beth (krnospa...@1st.net) wrote:
: I do
: believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see auras in some cases.
Step up to the plate and let somebody test you. There's a pretty hefty chunk of money for youif you succeed.
: The research results that you cited, in my opinion, could be related to
: people that are trying to "learn" this!
How 'bout related to the fact that it's pure BS? Many people _have_
actually allowed tests of their ability to detect "energy fields" and
auras. Every last one of them fails.
--
Grant Edwards
Grant Edwards
Carl Fink (ca...@panix.com) wrote:
: > . . . I do believe, though, that I am able to feel fields and see
: >auras in some cases. I believe that some people can naturally do
: >this, and some people can't. The research results that you cited,
: >in my opinion, could be related to people that are trying to
: >"learn" this! I don't think that it's a "learned" thing, but a
: >natural gift! -Beth
:
: Beth,
:
: You now have two choices: claim Randi's prize (over one million
: dollars) by proving you have this ability, or, admit you can't do
: this.
:
: Third choice: claim you don't want a million dollars.
Hell, do it anyway, and give the money to me...
--
Grant Edwards
Jason Griffey
Beth wrote:
> Hi Rob!
> Please tell me the difference between a believer and a knower. Please
> expand on your response to my post. I am intrigued!
> Thanks! -Beth
Well, I'm not Rob, but I think I can handle this. It's basic
epistemology...
to Know is to have a Justified True Belief (barring gettier examples for
those
of you who buys those sorts of things). A belief is any thought you might
have in declaritive form, for instance, I might believe I'm The Pope (tm),
thus, I would in effect be a believer in that statement. However, I would
not know that statement, since, as a matter of empirical fact, I am not The
Pope.
I am, however, a human. I Know this, since it is an empirical fact which can
be measured (x number of chromosomes, walks upright, can use a computer,
whatever group of criteria you might have), as well as tested. A belief
can't
be tested, since it is a subjective piece of thought, while knowledge must
have
a truth and a justifiability above and beyond a simple belief.
While the above rambles a bit, it's got most of the important stuff in
it. Want
more? Pick up any epistemology reader or beginning epis. book and it
will have more of the same...
later,
jason
Miriam P. Rogers
"A little child shall lead them.." I think even in the story of the
naked emporer dressed in invisable clothes, it was child that pointed
out the fallacy of group belief in a lie. The science of the study was
good, it was clean and it tested the theoretical underpinning of the TT
dogma - the ability to sense an energy field. If the theory is real, it
doesn't require "belief" by all involved - that's called a religion.
Foisting off religion as a science is doomed to failure, and in this
expirement the theory failed. I do believe that patients need to have
confidence in their practitioners and trust in the judgement of those
providing their care. Not because it makes the treatment work better but
because it helps them to have a measure of peace about their choices, to
comply with the therapy, and to feel more of an active participant in
their care.
Touching and holding is an act of compassion and shared humanity and an
important part of what it means to be a nurse - not science. Of course
TT is several permutations from that and proports to regulate and cure.
The line was crossed when TT true believers started to imply that
anything including cancer could be *cured* by regulating these fields.
That makes it dangerous, period.
Jim Haynes
In article <beenthere-ya024080...@news.idt.net>,
Understatement <been...@donethat.com> wrote:
>This is really the baffling part of the whole business to me. Modern
>medicine is supposed to be supported by scientific evidence before
>a new proposed treatment is accepted and promoted as beneficial.
>People trust medical professionals to advise them as to what course
>of treatment is likely to help them and ASSUME that the advice is based
>on sound research or at least plausible theory. How do things like this
>come into widespread use and become part of course offerings at nursing
>schools?
Well, in another context, someone wrote a nice paragraph about how
scientific medicine and medical practice differ. Scientific medicine
usually leads to results stated in terms of statistics. You give a
treatment to a bunch of people and label it effective if most of
those who got the treatment got better and those who didn't get it
didn't get better. You expect that some of the people who don't get
the treatment will get better anyway, and a few who do get it will
get worse. But in clinical practice it's the doctor and
the patient one-on-one. The doctor we hope is guided somewhat by
medical science; but he or she is essentially doing an experiment
on one subject at a time, and drawing conclusions that might not
stand up to scientific scrutiny. After all, we don't know why there
is a placebo effect, but we know it's there. So the doctor prescribes
some treatment, and the patient gets better, and the reason may have
nothing to do with the treatment at all, but more with the patient's
confidence that the doctor is doing something appropriate and useful.
Carl Fink
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:07:03 -0500, Beth <krnospa...@1st.net> wrote:
>Unfortunately, it is not an "on command" type of thing. Just something that
>happens from time to time and can't be proven! (Maybe it's TIAs :+)
What you're reporting boils down to "sometimes I see auras and have
strange sensations that I can't explain."
You're a nurse -- does that sound like migraine or epilepsy or what?
Carl Fink
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:35:37 -0800, Jeff <jwhit...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Years ago Native Americans applied moss to wounds. Moss contains
>penicillin.
No, it doesn't. You're thinking of the bread mold _Penicillium
notatum_.
You are correct, of course, that merely because one of the TT claims
("sense human energy fields") is false, their other claims are not
automatically false. What you're ignoring is the utter lack of any
evidence whatever that TT works. Practitioners in general won't
permit their claims to be tested -- does that sound like the act of a
confident, reasonable person?
Traumadog
Beth wrote:
Hi Rob!
Please tell me the difference between a believer and a knower. Please
expand on your response to my post. I am intrigued!
Thanks! -Beth
Beth,
If you BELEIVE in Santa Claus, presents won't show up under the tree will they? No, they won't. I KNOW the presents won't show up until I (or somone else buys them) and put them there.
Does that help to define in simple enough terms?
Darren
Hugh Gibbons
In article <35242E...@Pagesz.net>, "Miriam P. Rogers"
<mir...@Pagesz.net> wrote:
! ... I do believe that patients need to have
! confidence in their practitioners and trust in the judgement of those
! providing their care. Not because it makes the treatment work better but
! because it helps them to have a measure of peace about their choices, to
! comply with the therapy, and to feel more of an active participant in
! their care.
This is critical. But furthermore, there's the issue of billing patients
for "therapy" that is essentially voodoo. It is unethical if not criminal.
! Touching and holding is an act of compassion and shared humanity and an
! important part of what it means to be a nurse - not science.
It becomes scienfific if you can show that patients benefit medically
from human contact, holding, talking, etc. In the case of infants,
particularly, it's clear that human contact is not just beneficial,
but necessary. It would not be at all surprising if it's the same
in adults.
! Of course
! TT is several permutations from that and proports to regulate and cure.
! The line was crossed when TT true believers started to imply that
! anything including cancer could be *cured* by regulating these fields.
! That makes it dangerous, period.
Absolutely.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The only good martyr is a dead martyr.
Beth
Hi Carl!
MRI neg., Head CT neg., Cerebral Angio neg. :+) Hx of TIA related to
Atrial Septal Defect (during pregnancy). The weird occurences seem to be
directly related to how another person is feeling. Like when someone is
really stressed or upset, I can see and feel it as soon as I enter the room.
(And I'm not talking about facial expressions and body language). It makes
no matter to me whether you buy this or not. And as I said, I do not do
anything with it.......so what's the problem? -Beth
p.s. Sister with epilepsy.........EEG neg. too
Cheezits
On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Andrew Heenan wrote:
> David Voth wrote:
> > A placebo effect IS an effect and it can be very useful.
> a better-than-placebo effect - but no clue as to why!
I've heard it said that the reason they work is because they are forms of
hypnosis, which (I think) is something stronger than the placebo effect.
It's one thing to passively take a pill and believe that it's going to
make you better. It's another thing to be put into a state of relaxed
concentration and respond to suggestions that you are being cured. From
what I've read of TT, it sounds to me like another way to achieve that
effect.
I can imagine how I would feel if I were in the hospital, hoping to
recover from some life-threatening condition. If someone were to wave
their hands over me and say they were releasing negative energy (or
whatever), I'd be perfectly willing to suspend disbelief and go along with
the idea. I'm pretty sure it couldn't hurt, and it might even help.
But that doesn't mean that the energy field is really there.
Sue
--
----- Never spam anyone who mentions cauce.org in their .sig. -----
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
David Dixon
Miriam P. Rogers wrote:
<snipped>
> Touching and holding is an act of compassion and shared humanity and > an important part of what it means to be a nurse - not science.
<snipped>
I agree with that sentiment. I cite as an example, a pre-teen or teen
with severe psoriasis. These patients often have very low self-esteem,
often believing they are 'dirty' or even contagious. Going out of your
way to touch these patients in an attempt to show them you are not
afraid of catching their condition is a major part of the nurse's
therapeutic role.
Similarly, a touch or a holding of hands can also be of therapeutic
value in all aspects of illness.
However, as I understand it TT is not actually TOUCHING the patient is
it? Isn't it just passing hands over the body? In which case I can see
no way that this treatment modality can possibly work, other than
through the 'placebo' effect.
I ask these questions not to invite flames, but to increase my
knowledge.
Regards,
David Dixon.
Dan Pressnell
In article <35228F...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu>,
David Rind <ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu> wrote:
> It's nice that you believe that you can do this. Do you believe
> that you could pass the test this eleven-year-old researcher devised?
> The people she studied thought they could. You might try reading
> the article in this week's JAMA.
According to the article, the testees even were satisfied and thought they HAD
passed. Until they learned the results, at which point they had various
objections to the experiment.
It's common with this type of stuff to hear that passing a test is valid, but
failing it is meaningless.
Dan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
BnGKenoyer
First: The practice of Medicine is, and always has been, trial and error.
(I think) You have this, and if you do this you will get better. Come
back in 2 days if you are not better (and we will try some thing else as I must
then have been wrong about what you have).
Second: About 75% of medical practice has NOT been validated by science.
Many combination drugs are sold as being more effective than a single drug
to treat a disease state. Quibron, in the 1970's, was a combination of
theophylline and ephedrine and something else. It was widely prescribed to
treat adult and child asthma. Drug trials found that the multi drug product
produced the same amount of relief as the theopylline alone. Note that these
trials were AFTER the drug was in wide spread use.
Third: All medical practice advances begin with a doc trying something old in
a new way. If it seems to work then they set up a study to try to prove it.
Anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness passes around (via such routes as JAMA)
and it is often adopted widely into practice long before clinical trials are
completed.
(can a "lurker" Doc add an example here for me? I don't recall a good one just
now :)
And now on to TT:
The study by the 11 year old appears both valid and significant. It needs to
be replicated by a different reseacher with a bigger sample. It clearly shows
a problem in sensing human energy fields, and this is believed to be the base
of action of all the TT effects. The conclusion that TT has no clinical value
is not supported, as the clinical effect of TT was not tested in any way.
Because phlogiston does not exist does not mean that oxygen does not play a key
role in life.
Anecdotally, I practice TT on an occasional basis, with my peers. 2 of 3 times
I use it I can reduce headaches and other pain. A nurse with a severe headache
is at increased risk of error, and a nurse without a headache is much happier.
I don't pretend to know much about TT beyound that it seems to exist for me,
and has let me help some peers. If Martha Rogers Unitary Man theory of nursing
and its energy field estoricia is a valid and valualable part of nursing
science then TT fits right in.
Also, please note that I have never heard of TT being advocated as curing
anything, rather it is useful as adjunctive therapy in wholistic practice,
where Mind/Body/Spirit needs are all recognised and met. I have read several
attempts to quantify actual biophysical changes resulting from the use of TT.
The medical center using TT in the OR with open hearts is involved in just such
a study. The benefits of TT, if real, will manifest in a faster recovery with
less need for harsh chemical intervention (drugs) in the process. If TT
treated patients are ready for discharge earlier, have less postop
complications, and use less drugs, and the numbers beat the placebo (its a
contolled study after all) effect it will still be a must useful piece of
touchy feely mumbo jumbo, won't it?
Please read about the history of the alliance of surgeons and allopathic
physicians that formed todays medicine. 100 years ago thier were more than a
dozen types of doctors actively treating patients for illness. Most of them
were quacks, and even the sincere ones did more harm than help as they tried to
treat humors of the blood and bile. Surgeons resisted germ theory harder than
any other group. (Used to be able to judge the experiance of your surgeon by
the amount of old blood crusted on his coat cuffs.) If Osteopaths and
Naturopaths had allied with surgeons the Allopaths would be out in the cold
land of quackery with Podiatry and Chiropractic today.
And last, please note my signature line....
Bruce RN
Reality is plastic: What is real is what we all agree is real.
Carl Fink
On 4 Apr 1998 04:00:05 GMT, BnGKenoyer <bngke...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Please read about the history of the alliance of surgeons and allopathic
>physicians that formed todays medicine.
I have. You do realize that "allopathic" is a word made up long after
the events you are (mis-) describing?
>. . . If Osteopaths and
>Naturopaths had allied with surgeons the Allopaths would be out in the cold
>land of quackery with Podiatry and Chiropractic today.
You do realize that osteopaths are not quacks, that they've abandoned
most of the ridiculous spinal-adjustment theory that started that
school? The fact that early osteopaths had false ideas is no more
significant than the nonsense early physicians believed, like the
humoral theory of disease.
Chiropractic is still pseudoscience, though.
Your description of your own TT is, as you perhaps know, not very
compelling. As I say to all such: if you can do it, claim the Randi
prize of 1.1 million dollars. Or admit you can't. Or claim you don't
want the bucks.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Larry Torrey
On Thu, 02 Apr 1998 07:41:10 -0800, David Voth <dr...@concentric.net>
said:
>...TT and acupuncture both rely on supposed manipulation of an unproven
>"energy field". I suspect that the underlying theories behind both
>practices will never be satisfactorily proven or debunked. It may be
>impossible to prove that an alleged invisible force is not there...
I suggest that it is incumbent upon the proponents of TT to prove it's
effectiveness, rather than on the rest of us to disprove it. Now that
we see some data that states energy fields cannot be detected by the
practitioners, do we have data from the supporters to the contrary?
Larry
** to reply please remove the "XX" from my address **
Phil
ceprn wrote:
>
> "Beth" <krnospa...@1st.net> wrote:
>
> >Hi Rob!
> > Please tell me the difference between a believer and a knower. Please
> >expand on your response to my post. I am intrigued!
> > Thanks! -Beth
>
> possible based on *faith*, which is internal, whereas a knower is
> someone who can duplicate (or has seen a duplication) through
> scientific means, which is external. While no-one can prove that you
> do or don't feel electric fields and see auras, the fact that the rest
> of us can not duplicate your claim, nor can we validate it makes us
> very skeptical - if more people were skeptical, old people wouldn't be
> bilked out of their life savings by evangelists.
>
> ceprn at hotmail dot com
>
> >
> >
There is no difference - they both "know" arriving there by different
paths. Science is changeable - not knowing but theorizing an
understanding and modifying that understanding based on new info.
Phil
Unknown
ltor...@maine.rr.com (Larry Torrey) wrote:
I see many of us jumping on the rational conclusion that it doesn't
exist, but so far I have seen only one person defend the practice. I
think that might speak for itself.. on the other hand "Ignore that man
behind the Curtain!" ;-)
Only in Nursing would pure quackery be accepted as a treatment. What
does that say about us? That we are so desparate that we have to try
and find something that sets us apart from Doctors as a profession
that we'll make it up?
cbi...@scruznet.com
> Hi Carl!
> MRI neg., Head CT neg., Cerebral Angio neg. :+) Hx of TIA related to
> Atrial Septal Defect (during pregnancy). The weird occurences seem to be
> directly related to how another person is feeling. Like when someone is
> really stressed or upset, I can see and feel it as soon as I enter the room.
> (And I'm not talking about facial expressions and body language).
How do you know it isn't facial expressions and body language? Have you
tested this by perhaps walking into a room backwards every so often and
seen if you 'see and feel' something? Can you describe what you do 'see'?
It is true that you are probably not huring anyone by your belief, but you
have offered your belief in a forum and will probably be called on to
explain how you think it works.
Oh, and if you are going to use terms such as "MRI neg., Head CT neg.,
Cerebral Angio neg. :+) Hx of TIA related to Atrial Septal Defect
(during pregnancy)." you should probably define these and explain why they
are significant to those of us who don't have that information.
Charles
cbi...@scruznet.com
In article <6g0imj$ooq$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>, "Jeff"
<jwhit...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> What seems to have been "proven" by the 9 year old's experiment is that,
> in the subjects studied, the potential cause of any potential benefit they
> may be conferring on patients is probably false....i.e. the "touchers" can't
> sense the patient's energy.
> But this is a far cry from disproving any benefit that the touch therapy
> may confer.
> Years ago Native Americans applied moss to wounds. Moss contains
> penicillin. Their belief in why such moss conferred benefit I am sure had
> nothing to do with the drug Penicillin. So disproving the belief backing up
> the practice would not have disproved the benefit of the practice.
The application of moss to wounds had nothing to do with belief. It had to
do with experimentation-if we put moss on wounds they get better faster.
> I don't either believe nor disbelieve in "Therapeutic Touch". What I
> have noticed, from benefiting from Shiatzu Massage and Chiropractic
> manipulation, is that often the beliefs backing up the practice seem bizarre
> and unscientific, while still the technique seems to confer benefit.
The test, as performed by the young girl wasn't designed to see it the
touch had any benefit to the patient. It was designed to see whether the
claims of the practitioners that they could sense an energy field were
correct. The test proved in this case that they could not do better than
chance and sensing a field.
[much snippage]
Charles
Dave/Kristin Hall
Grant Edwards (gra...@visi.com) wrote:
: How 'bout related to the fact that it's pure BS? Many people _have_
: actually allowed tests of their ability to detect "energy fields" and
: auras. Every last one of them fails.
Which brings up a question.... After these individuals get shot down, do
they typically re-evaluate themselves or do they typically write off the
flaying to evil science?
--
David Hall
Propulsion Performance Office (Code 4732H0D)
Naval Air Warfare Center - Weapons Division
China Lake, CA 93555
danny burstein
>Grant Edwards (gra...@visi.com) wrote:
>
>: How 'bout related to the fact that it's pure BS? Many people _have_
>: actually allowed tests of their ability to detect "energy fields" and
>: auras. Every last one of them fails.
>Which brings up a question.... After these individuals get shot down, do
>they typically re-evaluate themselves or do they typically write off the
>flaying to evil science?
There was a similar situation with "facilitated communication", which was
the subject of a [nova or frontline] documentary last year. The
adherents (at least the ones shown on camera) went through a blind, so to
speak, test, and discovered that the stuff did not work.
When interviewed later they said (more or less) that they were very
surprised, couldn't understand how they had been fooled, were disappointed
to the point of tears because they had hoped (and believed) it had been
working, but they now understood it was garbage.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
gol...@shani.net
It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters, people on
different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated communication. for example,
in article <6g9q00$1...@panix.com>,
dan...@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote:
>
> In <6g9oda$8aj$1...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us> theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Dave/Kristin Hall) writes:
>
> >Grant Edwards (gra...@visi.com) wrote:
> >
> >: How 'bout related to the fact that it's pure BS? Many people _have_
> >: actually allowed tests of their ability to detect "energy fields" and
> >: auras. Every last one of them fails.
>
> >Which brings up a question.... After these individuals get shot down, do
> >they typically re-evaluate themselves or do they typically write off the
> >flaying to evil science?
>
> There was a similar situation with "facilitated communication", which was
> the subject of a [nova or frontline] documentary last year. The
> adherents (at least the ones shown on camera) went through a blind, so to
> speak, test, and discovered that the stuff did not work.
>
> When interviewed later they said (more or less) that they were very
> surprised, couldn't understand how they had been fooled, were disappointed
> to the point of tears because they had hoped (and believed) it had been
> working, but they now understood it was garbage.
>
Whenever I notice this, I intend to post a request to please do not attack
facilitated communication (FC) when discussing other matters. I am well
aware that Rhonda will post negative remarks about FC, especially on The Arc
wwwboard, when someone supports FC, but at least Rhonda had negative
experience with FC (although it appears to have been over five years ago). I
continue to have only positive personal experience with FC for my own 26
year-old son Ben. I am so frustrated that other parents will not even
consider FC because of its very negative reputation, which is reinforced by
such statements as the one quoted above.
Danny Burstein appears to have seen one of the frequent rebroadcasts of a
Frontline show on FC, rebroadcast again last week, but originally broadcast
on October 19, 1993, entitled "Prisoners of Silence." Before anyone makes
any negative remarks about FC based on this show produced by WGBH of Boston,
please look at Internet site
<http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealccinc/FrontA.htm> an article with its several
links entitled "Prisoners of Silence: What Frontline Didn't Tell You" by
Chris Borthwick. I hope Danny Burstein will take the time to read this
information and post his comments to these same newsgroups. I would have
e-mailed him privately too, but I am confused about his proper e-mail
address.
If you wonder why WGBH of Boston would be negative about FC, I suspect it was
influenced by a lawyer in Boston who has made a lot of money defending people
against charges brought through FC. I would love to know if this lawyer will
share in the estimated quarter million dollar legal fee that would be paid in
the five month old $750,000 jury award against Orange County, New York I just
learned about yesterday - see <http://www.ljx.com/nylj/ix110797.html>.
Although Orange County used FC with an 11 year old who is mentally retarded
in removing her from the parents home for 23 months, its liability was also
based on its failure to adequately train its social workers, a national
problem in alleged abuse cases having nothing to do with FC.
Art
Erinbrenna Pierce
> through the 'placebo' effect. <snip>
I think that is one of the things that truly troubles me about this TT
debate. I personally don't believe in the manipulation of auras (just to
put my cards on the table), but I HAVE seen the truly marvelous influence
a back rubbed, a cheek stroked, a hand held, and hair brushed can have on
almost any patient. THIS is the touch that should be taught, fostered and
reinforced in nursing schools and in the workplace (and reimbursed,
dammit! Are you listening, HMOs?) TT is taking the spotlight off of what
we KNOW works, and putting it on the unproven. Now the unproven is not
evil in and of itself, but it should not be accorded the same rank,
rights, and privileges of proven techniques until it has run the same
gauntlet. (IMHO)
(On a side note:
To: Whoever first mentioned aspirin (I've lost the post, sorry!)
I believe you said something similar to "if aspirin had come to us as
an unconventional therapy initially" (if I am wrong, PLEASE correct
me!)...aspirin WAS an herbal remedy (from the willow, or spirea) for
hundreds, if not thousands of years, before it became a "clinical"
remedy. The aspirin we use today is a chemical copy, which is
cheaper to produce and easier to formulate, but it is only a copy.
Health and happiness-
EBPierce
SUNY at Buffalo
"The weather is here, wish you were beautiful." -Jimmy Buffett
Andrew Heenan
gol...@shani.net wrote:
> It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters,
> people on different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated
It would help us in our attack planning if you would be so kind as to tell
us what FC is. (But seriously - I'd like to know)
--
Andrew Heenan
Editor, World Wide Wounds:
http://www.smtl.co.uk/World-Wide-Wounds/
No cookies, No subscription, No fees.
mailto:a.he...@smtl.co.uk
Carl Fink
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 08:10:02 -0600, gol...@shani.net <gol...@shani.net> wrote:
>It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters, people on
>different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated communication.
It's a great example of people believing in something that's clearly
not true. You are a fine counterexample to Danny's claim that when
shown the falsehood of their beliefs, people will give them up.
You comment in text I've removed that you've had nothing but positive
experiences with FC and your son. Can you provide double-blind
evidence that your son is actually communicating via FC? See,
*evidence* rather than mere claim is what's required to convince
folks, especially since I'm reading this in alt.folklore.science.
JohnPegase
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.98040...@joxer.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
Erinbrenna Pierce <e...@acsu.buffalo.edu> writes:
>(On a side note:
> To: Whoever first mentioned aspirin (I've lost the post, sorry!)
> I believe you said something similar to "if aspirin had come to us as
> an unconventional therapy initially" (if I am wrong, PLEASE correct
> me!)...aspirin WAS an herbal remedy (from the willow, or spirea) for
> hundreds, if not thousands of years, before it became a "clinical"
> remedy. The aspirin we use today is a chemical copy, which is
> cheaper to produce and easier to formulate, but it is only a copy.
>
>
Aspirin from willow is identical in all respects to that produced by modern
drug companies. You phrase "only a copy" suggests that "natural drugs" are
different to those produced in a flask. Soory, but you need a course in
chemistry to understand this more fully.
John
Kurt Foster
[sci.skeptic and alt.folklore.science only]
In <6gak7a$7g6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> in sci.skeptic, gol...@shani.net
wrote:
[snip]
. Before anyone makes any negative remarks about FC based on this show
. produced by WGBH of Boston, please look at Internet site
. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealccinc/FrontA.htm> an article with its
. several links entitled "Prisoners of Silence: What Frontline Didn't
. Tell You" by Chris Borthwick. [snip]
.
No sale. I saw that broadcast. The tests were simple, well designed,
and the results absolutely clearcut and easy to understand. The
"communication" comes entirely from the "facilitator".
If you want to attack the results, you'll have to attack the validity of
those tests (which I don't think you can do, and I notice you didn't
attempt to do) -- INSTEAD of trying to insinuate that WGBH, or somebody,
"had an agenda". I say it's YOU who's got the agenda -- a material
interest in perpetuating FC perhaps -- even though FC has been proven to
be spurious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those were normal, suspicious customers, and these are morons, born
suckers. You just figure out a con they'll fall for; they won't know
enough to do any smart checking."
-- Honest John Barlow, in "The Marching Morons" by Cyril Kornbluth
Russel Carlson
Jeff wrote:
> But this is a far cry from disproving any benefit that the touch therapy
> may confer.
> Years ago Native Americans applied moss to wounds. Moss contains
> penicillin. Their belief in why such moss conferred benefit I am sure had
> nothing to do with the drug Penicillin. So disproving the belief backing up
> the practice would not have disproved the benefit of the practice.
>
Well, I've heard that the Ancient Egyptions used to eat moldy bread for some
ailments, again a reference to penicillin. However, since they didn't know
what penicillin was, they didn't really know when it would be most effective.
Another example. I've been told for years by some friends how effective
acupuncture is. Other friends have tried it for colds (which it was supposed
to cure) and it had no effect. I believe that there is now some good
statistical
evidence that acupuncture is good at helping certain problems (like post-
surgical pain) but not other problems which were claimed to be cured with
acupuncture.
Now to my point. Believing in a wrong theory with real results can be
dangerous
because it can be applied in the wrong way, and do more harm than good.
(don't take penicillin when it's not appropriate!) So, if we have a good
reason
for a therapy to work, we can apply it effectively. If we have a traditional
and
unproven reason for it to work (eating moldy bread for stomachaches will only
be good if you have a bacterial infection, and can cause harm otherwise) we
may have anecdotal evidence for the process working (those who's problems
fit the cure) and loads of unsung cases where the procedure didn't work, or
made the problem worse.
It is always a good idea to debunk wrong reasons, even if the procedure had
some merit. Finding the real reason these processes work (if they do work)
would be much better, because we would better know which cases required the
treatment, and which did not.
-Russel
Larry Gritz
In article <6gb3bu$2ou$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>,
Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 08:10:02 -0600, gol...@shani.net <gol...@shani.net> wrote:
>>It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters, people on
>>different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated communication.
>
>It's a great example of people believing in something that's clearly
>not true.
Indeed. If anybody wants some definitive citations, please go to your
local university library and check out the _Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders_, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1993. This single issue
contains 5 or 6 papers testing FC, and the results are extremely
conclusive that there's nothing to it. There was also an excellent
Frontline (PBS documentary show) about FC a couple years back.
The test is simple: totally blindfold the facilitator, and see if
the patient still produces meaningful text. The only people who
can pass this test are those who are highly functioning enough that
they don't really need the facilitator anyway.
-- lg
--
Larry Gritz Pixar Animation Studios
l...@pixar.com Richmond, CA
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gbl12$9uu$1...@news1.rmi.net>,
Kurt Foster <kfo...@rmi.net> wrote:
>
> [sci.skeptic and alt.folklore.science only]
> In <6gak7a$7g6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> in sci.skeptic, gol...@shani.net
> wrote:
> [snip]
> . Before anyone makes any negative remarks about FC based on this show
> . produced by WGBH of Boston, please look at Internet site
> . http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealccinc/FrontA.htm> an article with its
> . several links entitled "Prisoners of Silence: What Frontline Didn't
> . Tell You" by Chris Borthwick. [snip]
> .
> No sale. I saw that broadcast. The tests were simple, well designed,
> and the results absolutely clearcut and easy to understand. The
> "communication" comes entirely from the "facilitator".
> If you want to attack the results, you'll have to attack the validity of
> those tests (which I don't think you can do, and I notice you didn't
> attempt to do) -- INSTEAD of trying to insinuate that WGBH, or somebody,
> "had an agenda". I say it's YOU who's got the agenda -- a material
> interest in perpetuating FC perhaps -- even though FC has been proven to
> be spurious.
>
I believe you are wrong. By citing the above website authored by Chris
Borthwick, I believe that he more than adequately attacks the validity of
those tests. Therefore, it should not be necessary for me to repeat what is
already contained in that site. Please do take the time to read the material
and post your own opinion. I hope that others will take the time to read
this material and post their own opinion.
I do have a strong emotional interest in FC because my own 26 year old son
Ben uses FC, but I have a stronger interest in providing what is best for my
own son. Also, I feel a duty as a human being to help others who could
benefit from FC, which is made much harder to do by the regular rebroadcast
of a now 4-1/2 year old show, Frontline's "Prisoners of Silence." I
sincerely believe that someone does have an agenda to reinforce this negative
public impression of facilitated communication.
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gb3bu$2ou$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>,
ca...@dm.net wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 08:10:02 -0600, gol...@shani.net <gol...@shani.net> wrote:
> >It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters, people on
> >different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated communication.
>
> It's a great example of people believing in something that's clearly
> shown the falsehood of their beliefs, people will give them up.
>
> You comment in text I've removed that you've had nothing but positive
> experiences with FC and your son. Can you provide double-blind
> evidence that your son is actually communicating via FC? See,
> *evidence* rather than mere claim is what's required to convince
> folks, especially since I'm reading this in alt.folklore.science.
> --
> Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
>
I was not a science teacher as you were, but I personally know Michael Weiss,
who has a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University, who has a
peer-reviewed article published in the July 1996 Journal of Mental
Retardation, which provided scientific evidence for the validity of
facilitated communication. If my son did not move to Israel in August 1994,
Michael Weiss would have included my son in his validation tests discussed in
the above-mentioned article. With your science background, would you do me
the favor of reading that article (which I read but do not feel competent to
objectively judge) and report your findings to these newsgroups? Also,
please disclose your factual basis for your statement that I believe
"something that's clearly not true." Thanks.
Aaron D. Ball
On 6 Apr 1998, JohnPegase wrote:
[]> remedy. The aspirin we use today is a chemical copy, which is
[]> cheaper to produce and easier to formulate, but it is only a copy.
[]Aspirin from willow is identical in all respects to that produced by modern
[]drug companies. You phrase "only a copy" suggests that "natural drugs" are
[]different to those produced in a flask. Soory, but you need a course in
[]chemistry to understand this more fully.
Sort of:
Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. I'm not sure if willow contains
acetylsalyclic acid or just salicylic acid (which, IIRC, is also a
painkiller, just not as effective as aspirin). Anyway, suppose willow
contains acetylsalyclic acid. Then (aside, perhaps, from trivial
differences in radioisotope concentrations ::) ) sure, the acid in willow
is no different from that in a pill. However, in neither case are you
consuming only aspirin.
The laboratory synthesis of aspirin, if they do the same thing in chemical
plants that I did in orgo lab, would get the sodium salt of salicylic acid
from somewhere (perhaps extracted from willow bark with the deadly
inorganic solvent and greenhouse gas dihydrogen ether, or something
similiarly ion-friendly, with an organic solvent to get rid of the
undersirable stuff), react it in an organic solvent with acetic anhydride,
and then do another solvent extraction to get the aspirin. That means
that aspirin produced in a laboratory is going to be pretty much clean of
ionic compounds, but may well have a number of organic contaminants
(including the solvent and salicylic acid). But on the whole, you will
have very pure aspirin and pretty much nothing inorganic. Then, to put it
in pill form, you mix the aspirin with something solidish to give it
shape, and maybe some ionic buffers, caffeine, acetaminophen, whatever.
If you toss back a pill that came from a bottle that said "Active
ingredient: aspirin" and nothing else, you have acetylsalicylic acid,
maybe a harmless amount of contaminants, and stuff (some kind of gel?
Cellulose? Something) to hold the pill together.
On the other hand, if you suck on willow bark, you're in fact consuming a
whole grab bag of chemicals. Aspirin (or sal) is among them, but there
will also be lots of salts (including the natural buffers), sugars,
proteins, cellulose, bug droppings, etc. If you pop a pill made the
"organic" (what an abuse of language) way, or drink willow tea, or
whatever, you are getting aspirin (or sal) and whatever else comes with it
that didn't get removed because they didn't do solvent extraction, except
maybe with water. This might be good, or it might be bad. My friend the
holistic/organic-type premed student suggests that willow extract (or
whatever) might have natural buffers in it that straight chemical aspirin
does not. Whatever.
Anyway, "natural" drugs, as packaged, certainly *are* quite different from
the standard versions, as packaged. Any chemist (or 2nd-year chem student)
could tell the difference in a few minutes with TLC.
There's certainly a negative placebo effect when it comes to drugs,
though: I'll wager that a lot of people react better *psychosomatically*
when they use "natural" drugs, since they feel more comfortable with
something uncontaminated by the devil science.
Wheee! That was fun. Next!
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
In sci.med Dave/Kristin Hall <theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> Grant Edwards (gra...@visi.com) wrote:
>
> : How 'bout related to the fact that it's pure BS? Many people _have_
> : actually allowed tests of their ability to detect "energy fields" and
> : auras. Every last one of them fails.
> Which brings up a question.... After these individuals get shot down, do
> they typically re-evaluate themselves or do they typically write off the
> flaying to evil science?
The article in JAMA, about which this thread is about, discusses this.
"After each set of trials, the results were discussed with the
participant. Because all but 1 of the trials could have been considered a
failure, the participants usually chose to discuss possible explanations
for failure. Their rationalizations included the following:
"(1) The experimenter left a 'memory' of her hand behind, making it
increasingly difficult in successive trials to detect the real hand from
the memory. However, the first attempts (7 correct and 8 incorrect)
scored no better than the rest. Moreover, practitioners should be able to
tell whether a field they are sensing is 'fresh.'
"(2) The left hand is the 'receiver' of energy and the right hand is the
'transmitter.' Therefore, it can be more difficult to detect the field
when it is above the right hand. Of the 72 tests in which the hand was
placed above the subjects' right hand, only 27 (38%) had correct
responses. In addition, 35 (44%) of 80 incorrect answers involved the
allegedly more receptive left hand--consistent with randomness. Moreover,
practitioners customarily use both hands to assess.
"(3) Subjects should be permitted to identify the experimenter's field
before beginning actual trials. Each subject could be given an example of
the experimenter hovering her hand above each of theirs and told which
hand it is. Since the effects of the HEF are described in unsubtle terms,
such a procedure should not be necessary, but including it would remove a
possible post hoc objection. Therefore, we did so in the follow-up
testing.
"(4) The experimenter should be more proactive, centering herself and/or
attempting to transmit energy through her own intentionality. This
contradicts the fundamental premise of TT, since the experimenter's role
is analogous to that of the patient. Only the practitioner's
intentionality and preparation (centering) are theoretically necessary. If
not so, the early experiments (on relatively uninvolved subjects, such as
infants and barley seeds), cited frequently by TT advocates, must also be
discounted.
"(5) Some subjects complained that their hands became so hot after a few
trials that they were no longer able to sense the experimenter's HEF or
they experienced difficulty doing so. This explanation clashes with TT's
basic premise that practitioners can sense and manipulate the HEF with
their hands during sessions the typically last 20 to 30 minutes. If
practitioners become insensitive after only brief testing, the TT
hypothesis is untestable. Those who made this complaint did so after they
knew the results, not before. Moreover, only 7 of the 15 first trials
produced correct responses."
[Follow-up testing was done, allowing for preparation and allowing the
practitioner to choose the hand used.]
"After learning of their test scores, one participant said he was
distracted by the towel over his hands, another said that her hands had
been too dry, and several complained that the presence of the television
crew had made it difficult to concentrate and/or added to the stress of
the test. However, we do not believe that the situation was more
stressful or distracting than the settings in which many hospital nurses
practice TT (eg, intensive care units)."
from:
Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. "A Close Look at Therapeutic
Touch." JAMA. 1998;279:1005-1010.
--
Jonathan R. Fox, M.D.
Hugh Gibbons
In article <352546...@iname.com>, dpd...@iname.com wrote:
! Miriam P. Rogers wrote:
!
! <snipped>
!
! > Touching and holding is an act of compassion and shared humanity and >
an important part of what it means to be a nurse - not science.
!
! <snipped>
!
! I agree with that sentiment. I cite as an example, a pre-teen or teen
! with severe psoriasis. These patients often have very low self-esteem,
! often believing they are 'dirty' or even contagious. Going out of your
! way to touch these patients in an attempt to show them you are not
! afraid of catching their condition is a major part of the nurse's
! therapeutic role.
!
! Similarly, a touch or a holding of hands can also be of therapeutic
! value in all aspects of illness.
!
! However, as I understand it TT is not actually TOUCHING the patient is
! it? Isn't it just passing hands over the body? In which case I can see
! no way that this treatment modality can possibly work, other than
! through the 'placebo' effect.
!
! I ask these questions not to invite flames, but to increase my
! knowledge.
!
It's my impression that the technique involves talking in a soothing
way to the patient. The tape I heard on the radio report was rather
like a hypnotist practicing his art. Is it possible that it works
similarly to hypnosis?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I've sworn off being obnoxious. No, I mean it this time.
Hugh Gibbons
! Hi Carl!
! MRI neg., Head CT neg., Cerebral Angio neg. :+) Hx of TIA related to
! Atrial Septal Defect (during pregnancy). The weird occurences seem to be
! directly related to how another person is feeling. Like when someone is
! really stressed or upset, I can see and feel it as soon as I enter the room.
! (And I'm not talking about facial expressions and body language). It makes
! no matter to me whether you buy this or not. And as I said, I do not do
! anything with it.......so what's the problem? -Beth
! p.s. Sister with epilepsy.........EEG neg. too
EE neg means no indication of disease?
Lindsay Berge
l...@pixar.com (Larry Gritz) writes:
>In article <6gb3bu$2ou$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>,
>Indeed. If anybody wants some definitive citations, please go to your
>local university library and check out the _Journal of Autism and
>Developmental Disorders_, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1993. This single issue
>contains 5 or 6 papers testing FC, and the results are extremely
>conclusive that there's nothing to it. There was also an excellent
>Frontline (PBS documentary show) about FC a couple years back.
>The test is simple: totally blindfold the facilitator, and see if
>the patient still produces meaningful text. The only people who
>can pass this test are those who are highly functioning enough that
>they don't really need the facilitator anyway.
I have direct knowledge of this. A friend of mine was a `house parent'
for a group of developmentally disabled adults. One of them was later
involved in an accusation that her parents and brother had extensively
sexually abused her. The accusations came through a facilitated communicator
and seemed both lurid and bizarre. It was successfully debunked by the
Victorian Trustees Board who organized to have different questions passed
to the woman and her facilitated communicator. The questions answered
were those the facilitated communicator heard! The tapes became out of
sync and the facilitated communicator was even answering questions before
the woman had heard them!
The most stupid thing about the whole subject was that the woman had no
substantion motor impairment and could quite happily scribble and colour-in.
If she had been capable of spelling messages, she could hae written them.
The father made the statement that `he would not care that she was making
these accusations if he could only believe that she was capable of
functioning at such an intellectual level.'
This was a case where a facilitated communicator, for reasons which can only
be guessed at, caused enormous hurt and pain, as well as false hopes, to
a family already struck by misfortune. A more credulous response could have
led to criminal charges or at least a permanent stain on the character of
two loving and supportive men.
Best regards, Lindsay Berge
Hugh Gibbons
In article <3527846e...@news.primenet.com>, ceprn_...@hotmail.com wrote:
! I see many of us jumping on the rational conclusion that it doesn't
! exist, but so far I have seen only one person defend the practice. I
! think that might speak for itself.. on the other hand "Ignore that man
! behind the Curtain!" ;-)
!
! Only in Nursing would pure quackery be accepted as a treatment. What
! does that say about us? That we are so desparate that we have to try
! and find something that sets us apart from Doctors as a profession
! that we'll make it up?
Don't be so hard on yourself. There are still homeopaths out there.
Dave/Kristin Hall
gol...@shani.net wrote:
: It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters, people on
: in article <6g9q00$1...@panix.com>,
So, uh....what in the heck is facilitated communication?
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gbpo7$b74$1...@atlantis.pixar.com>,> Carl Fink <ca...@dm.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 08:10:02 -0600, gol...@shani.net <gol...@shani.net> wrote:
> >>It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters, people on
> >>different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated communication.
> >
> >not true.
>
> local university library and check out the _Journal of Autism and
> Developmental Disorders_, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1993. This single issue
> contains 5 or 6 papers testing FC, and the results are extremely
> conclusive that there's nothing to it. There was also an excellent
> Frontline (PBS documentary show) about FC a couple years back.
>
> The test is simple: totally blindfold the facilitator, and see if
> the patient still produces meaningful text. The only people who
> can pass this test are those who are highly functioning enough that
> they don't really need the facilitator anyway.
>
Although I do not keep up with the latest issues of the Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders (JADD), this journal also has several articles on FC
in a more recent issue - Volume 26, Number 1, dated February 1996. However,
I will also refer you to the article in the July 1996 issue of the Journal of
Mental Retardation by Michael Weiss, PH.D. in psychology. Michael Weiss
administered an IQ test in 1993 using FC to my now 26 year old son Ben, who
is not high functioning, but could not include Ben in his article because Ben
moved to Israel in 1994.
The Frontline show was first broadcast 4-1/2 years ago, not just a couple of
years ago, but for some reason is regularly repeated despite its "ancient"
age. As I stated before, please look at the material on the web at:
<http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealccinc/FrontA.htm> an article with several
links entitled "Prisoners of Silence: What Frontline Didn't Tell You" by
Chris Borthwick. Please do me the favor of reading this material and then
tell these newsgroups what you think about facilitated communication.
What is clearly true is that you agree with the statement of Carl Fink that I
believe in something that clearly is not true - but please give me your basis
for agreeing with such a strong statement. Your reply is anxiously awaited.
gol...@shani.net
In article <3529149F...@unforgettable.com>,
Andrew Heenan <hee...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> gol...@shani.net wrote:
> > It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters,
> > people on different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated
>
> It would help us in our attack planning if you would be so kind as to tell
> us what FC is. (But seriously - I'd like to know)
> --
> Andrew Heenan
> Editor, World Wide Wounds:
> http://www.smtl.co.uk/World-Wide-Wounds/
> No cookies, No subscription, No fees.
> mailto:a.he...@smtl.co.uk
>
To Andrew and anyone else with a serious desire to know about FC:
Please send me a private e-mail to <gol...@shani.net> and I will try to
respond with a customized answer, including www links both pro and anti-FC.
To be most helpful, please let me know if you have any personal experience or
knowledge of autism (the group most frequently using FC) and if you are
willing to seriously consider approaches going beyond standard science.
ric carter
theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us (Dave/Kristin Hall) wrote:
> Grant Edwards (gra...@visi.com) wrote:
>
> : How 'bout related to the fact that it's pure BS? Many people _have_
> : actually allowed tests of their ability to detect "energy fields" and
> : auras. Every last one of them fails.
>
> Which brings up a question.... After these individuals get shot down, do
> they typically re-evaluate themselves or do they typically write off the
> flaying to evil science?
Do they 'typically' do *anything*? Why let a failed validation ruin a
perfectly good career? How many people claiming paranormal abilities
of any sort give up and get honest jobs?
** Download a free Voice Stress Analysis lie detector. They hate
** it when you do that! >>> http://4bypass.com/truthvsa.html <<<
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <6gc7nr$4d9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
the lovely and talented gol...@shani.net
broadcast on alt.folklore.science,sci.skeptic:
|benefit from FC, which is made much harder to do by the regular rebroadcast
|of a now 4-1/2 year old show, Frontline's "Prisoners of Silence." I
|sincerely believe that someone does have an agenda to reinforce this negative
|public impression of facilitated communication.
This is just about the most obvious and easily exposed fraud in
the world today. Just about anyone could set up an experiment
in his living room -- no one needs a major research facility or
a grant to show that FC is a crock. It just takes a few pictures
and a piece of cardboard.
Seek psychiatric help.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner.html
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
* If at first you don't succeed, work for Microsoft.
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gc9c4$4cv$1...@izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au>,
l...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Lindsay Berge) wrote:
>
> I have direct knowledge of this. A friend of mine was a `house parent'
> for a group of developmentally disabled adults. One of them was later
> involved in an accusation that her parents and brother had extensively
> sexually abused her. The accusations came through a facilitated communicator
> and seemed both lurid and bizarre. It was successfully debunked by the
> Victorian Trustees Board who organized to have different questions passed
> to the woman and her facilitated communicator. The questions answered
> were those the facilitated communicator heard! The tapes became out of
> sync and the facilitated communicator was even answering questions before
> the woman had heard them!
>
> The most stupid thing about the whole subject was that the woman had no
> substantion motor impairment and could quite happily scribble and colour-in.
> If she had been capable of spelling messages, she could hae written them.
> The father made the statement that `he would not care that she was making
> these accusations if he could only believe that she was capable of
> functioning at such an intellectual level.'
>
> This was a case where a facilitated communicator, for reasons which can only
> be guessed at, caused enormous hurt and pain, as well as false hopes, to
> a family already struck by misfortune. A more credulous response could have
> led to criminal charges or at least a permanent stain on the character of
> two loving and supportive men.
>
> Best regards, Lindsay Berge
>
I plan to ask my contacts in Victoria, Australia if they have any
information about the very unfortunate situation you describe above. I
expect it will take a number of days to get any further information. Please
be patient, but I feel there is more to this story that ought to be told.
JohnPegase
In article <6gbvrr$b...@news.cybernews.net>, jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
writes:
>Subject: Re: Eleven year old debunks touch therapy
>From: jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
>Date:7 Apr 1998 01:34:51 GMT
>
>In sci.med Dave/Kristin Hall <theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>> Grant Edwards (gra...@visi.com) wrote:
>>
>> : How 'bout related to the fact that it's pure BS? Many people _have_
>> : actually allowed tests of their ability to detect "energy fields" and
>> : auras. Every last one of them fails.
>
>> Which brings up a question.... After these individuals get shot down, do
>> they typically re-evaluate themselves or do they typically write off the
>> flaying to evil science?
>
>The article in JAMA, about which this thread is about, discusses this.
>
>"After each set of trials, the results were discussed with the
>participant. Because all but 1 of the trials could have been considered a
>failure, the participants usually chose to discuss possible explanations
>for failure. Their rationalizations included the following:
>
snipped to save space, lots of silly excuses, go read the article or earlier
post
>
>from:
>
>Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. "A Close Look at Therapeutic
>Touch." JAMA. 1998;279:1005-1010.
>
>--
>Jonathan R. Fox, M.D.
But isn't it strange how none of them complained about this DURING the test,
only after they were told the results? Why didn't they speak up saying sorry,
this isn't working, I can't get a feeling. Why did they jsut keep on saying
"right hand" or "left hand". Why didn't they drop out of the test at an early
stage saying I'm distracted, my hands too hot, this isn't working? If the hand
left a memory, then when working on the human body, they must get really
confused due to the "memory" that would leave on their hands, so how can they
manipulate it??
They failed, just admit it.
John
Steven B. Harris
In <6gcf69$n9n$1...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us> theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us
(Dave/Kristin Hall) writes:
>
>gol...@shani.net wrote:
>: It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters,
people on
>: different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated communication.
>: in article <6g9q00$1...@panix.com>,
>
>So, uh....what in the heck is facilitated communication?
It's a lot like a ouija board. Somebody takes the hand of a
handicapped person, and moves it for them (or "steadies it" while they
move it). And gosh, the answers they give are then a lot better, and
their understanding and IQ all of a sudden sometimes look normal.
Except that if you make the "fascilitating" person go away when
questions are being asked, then come back when the question is being
answered, the person being helped gets a lot more impaired in
understanding again. Strange to tell. And the same for other cases
where you blind the fascilitator The more carefully you control the
tests, the more bogus it looks. James Randi has made fools of a number
of these people, but they just keep coming back. Most of the
fascilitators are NOT being dishonest, BTW-- it's just that such
behavior seems to be a valuable route into the subconscious of many
people. It used to be called "automatic writing" or "spirit writing"
in the days (last century) when you didn't have a mentally handicapped
or cerebral palsey victim hooked in, and ALL you had was the person
with the pencil, apparently writing things they didn't intend to, or
which didn't seem to be coming from them. You don't even have to have
writing. Think of trance-channeling.
It's hard to tell if fascilitated communication is bogus for EVERY
SINGLE CASE, of course. But it appears to be for most of them. It's
done an incredible amount of damage. One problem is that raw stuff
which comes from the unconscious of the fascilitator tends to have
awfully raw content. It is, after all, the unconsious mind. So
retarded people suddenly and very articulately start accusing people
around them of sexual misconduct. Witch hunts ensue, as you can
imagine. I'm awfully glad never to have been part of one of these
personally, but there's a lot of literature out there on the
phenomenon. In some ways it also bears some resemblance to "recovered
memory" stuff, in which again the person helping the memory "recovery"
is planting, quite subconsciously" some memories that aren't those of
the person getting the "help."
Steve Harris, M.D.
Andrew Heenan
ceprn wrote:
>
> Only in Nursing would pure quackery be accepted as a treatment.
> have to try and find something that sets us apart from Doctors
> as a profession that we'll make it up?
I don't think that's fair comment. For one thing, an equally valid
conclusion from that evidence is that nurses are more open minded, not so
manacled to the medical model (which ain't perfect either).
Also, "alternatives" are being tried - and believed in - by many millions
of people from many countries, cultures, professions etc. Nurses just
happen to live on Planet Earth and have the same rights, strengths and
weaknesses as anyone else!
--
Andrew Heenan
Nursing Links & Resources
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/pi/nurse/
mailto:hee...@unforgettable.com
Steven B. Harris
In <6gcbac$7vj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gol...@shani.net writes:
>I was not a science teacher as you were, but I personally know Michael
Weiss, who has a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University, who has a
>peer-reviewed article published in the July 1996 Journal of Mental
>Retardation, which provided scientific evidence for the validity of
>facilitated communication.
Yeah, there's a report of information passing with ONE person. How
much is such a report worth? Perhaps FC occasionally works. However,
if you read the literature, you do not get the picture of people who
seemed retarded, now writing novels (though this is reported in the
uncontrolled enthusiastic media). In the scientific literature there
are a few papers in which tiny bits of information (words) are
sometimes passed in FC, by people who possibly could do this anyway.
In general, most of the attempts to verify that suddenly high
functioning people by FC were really high functioning with blinded
facilitators, have been dismal failures. To give the flavor of all
this, I'll just post most of the good abstracts. There aren't that
many. Let the folks on the thread judge.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Ment Retard 1996 Aug;34(4):220-230
A validated case study of facilitated communication.
Weiss MJ, Wagner SH, Bauman ML
Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard
University Medical School, Boston 02114, USA.
The case of a 13-year-old boy with autism, severe mental retarda-
tion, and a seizure disorder who was able to demonstrate valid
facilitated communication was described. In three independent
trials, short stories were presented to him, followed by validat-
ion test procedures with an uninformed facilitator providing
physical support to the subject's arm. In Trials 1 and 3, several
specific answers were provided that clearly indicated that the
young man, not the uninformed facilitator, was the source of the
information. Moreover, some responses seemed to imply that the
subject was employing simple inferential and abstract reasoning.
This case study adds to the small, but growing number of
demonstrations that facilitated communication can sometimes be a
valid method for at least some individuals with developmental
disabilities.
----------
J Autism Dev Disord 1996 Feb;26(1):19-42
Multiple method validation study of facilitated communication:
II. Individual differences and subgroup results.
Bebko JM, Perry A, Bryson S
Department of Psychology, York University, North York, Ontario,
Canada.
Potential individual variations in the effectiveness of a shared
communication method, facilitated communication (FC), were
examined among 20 students with autism and related disorders. To
minimize the limits or disadvantages of a single method, we used
multiple methods, including auditory or visual input, and simple
pointing responses to pictures or words, as well as typing. Data
were collected after 6 weeks of FC, and follow-up data up to 7
months later. Findings differed across methods, but there was
little clear support for the validity of FC in enhancing commun-
ication over communication that students produced independently.
Significant facilitator influence of responses was found, but was
far less extensive than in other studies. However, an "abdicati-
on" pattern of responding was found for some students, in which
high performance observed with independent responding was
lessened on trials when FC was introduced. That is, these
students may become more passive communicators when FC is used.
The complex detected and undetected influences in the process
of communication through facilitation are discussed, as well as
risk factors in the use of FC.
J Autism Dev Disord 1995 Dec;25(6):597-610
Failure to confirm the word-retrieval problem hypothesis in
facilitated
communication.
Vazquez CA
Psychology Department, State University of New York, New Paltz
12561-2499, USA.
Two hypotheses were raised and empirically tested to account for
the failure of previous controlled validation studies to find
evidence of literacy in nonspeaking persons with autism using
facilitated communication: (a) The naming tasks used in other
studies have triggered specific "word retrieval" problems,
or anomia, and (b) a perceptual problem, visual agnosia, prevents
subjects from recognizing objects without touching them. Three
nonspeaking autistic children who had used facilitation for at
least 2 years were evaluated with four experimentally controlled
tasks, over a period of 5 months. In descriptive and object
handling tasks, and in a traditional picture identification task,
subjects failed to type correct answers when facilitators were
blind; one subject, however, occasionally engaged in signing and
vocalizations that were context-appropriate. Results reflected a
generalized language deficit, rather than isolated word-finding
or perceptual difficulties, and were consistent with many
previous studies revealing facilitator cuing. Questions are
raised about inconsistencies in pseudo-correct scores, a measure
of facilitator influence, reported here and in previous research.
PMID: 8720029, UI: 96348536
----------
J Autism Dev Disord 1994 Jun;24(3):345-355
Facilitated communication: an experimental evaluation.
Regal RA, Rooney JR, Wandas T
Young Adult Institute, Tarrytown, New York.
Nineteen participants in a day treatment program for the develop-
mentally disabled participated in this validation study of
facilitated communication (FC). Subjects and facilitators had
been involved in FC and judged competent by supervisors of the FC
project at the facility. An information-passing design was used
requiring short-term recall of one randomly selected stimulus
card at a time. Cards varied by the shape, the color of that
shape, and the number of that shape used on each card. Results
failed to validate facilitated communication for the group as a
whole, any individual facilitator, or any of the subjects. The
closeness of the results to chance expectations from an
experiment designed to validate only the most elemental claims of
FC suggests that extraordinary caution be accorded any claims of
communication that are the sole product of FC.
PMID: 8050987, UI: 94327438
----------
Ment Retard 1993 Feb;31(1):49-59
An experimental assessment of facilitated communication.
Wheeler DL, Jacobson JW, Paglieri RA, Schwartz AA
Autism Program, O. D. Heck/Eleanor Roosevelt DDSO, Schenectady,
NY 12304.
This report presents a quantitative study of facilitated communi-
cation. Participants were 12 people living at an institutional
autism program and 9 people who provided them with facilitated
communication support. These subjects were the 12 most competent
producers of facilitated communication in the program. They were
shown pictures of familiar objects and asked to type the
names of the objects under three conditions: (a) assisted typing
with facilitators unaware of the content of the stimulus picture,
(b) unassisted typing, and (c) a condition in which the partic-
ipants and facilitators were each shown pictures at the same
time. In this last condition the paired pictures were either the
same or different, and the participant's typing was facilitated
to label or describe the picture. These participants were unable
to succeed in the tasks without facilitator assistance. On trials
when the facilitators and participants had different pictures,
the only "correct" labels were for pictures shown to the
facilitators and not shown to the participants. This finding
demonstrates that the facilitators were unknowingly determining
what was typed.
Ment Retard 1996 Apr;34(2):94-107
Investigation of the validity of facilitated communication
through the disclosure of unknown information.
Sheehan CM, Matuozzi RT
Three individuals (8, 10, and 24 years old with diagnoses of
autism and mental retardation) participated in a message-passing
format to determine whether they could disclose information
previously unknown to their facilitators. Results showed valid
facilitated communication from each participant. The facilitated
speakers participated in 14 sessions, each lasting approximately
1 to 1.5 hours. A wide range of information was collected, coded,
and analyzed for validity, consistency, language difficulties,
behavioral compliance, and style of facilitation. Out of 720
communicative interactions, participants disclosed 77 incidents
of unknown information. Each participant revealed unique behavi-
ors and styles of responding, and all were able to demonstrate
genuinely independent communication through disclosure of
specific information previously unknown to a facilitator,
although much inconsistency was noted. Results
suggest that a phenomena as complex as facilitated communication
eludes a cursory exploration.
---------
Ment Retard 1996 Aug;34(4):231-242
Investigation of authorship in facilitated communication.
Cardinal DN, Hanson D, Wakeham J
School of Education, Center for Educational and Social Equity,
Chapman University, Orange, CA 92666, USA.
We examined whether facilitated communication users, under
controlled conditions, could transmit rudimentary information to
a naive facilitator. Forty-three students across 10 classrooms
were shown a single randomly selected word with their facilitator
out of the room. The facilitator then entered the room and asked
the student to type the word, which was recorded exactly as
typed and later evaluated; approximately 3,800 attempts were
conducted over a 6-week period. Results showed that (a) under
controlled conditions, some facilitated communication users can
pass accurate information and (b) measurement of facilitated
communication under test conditions may be significantly
benefitted by extensive practice of the test protocol, which
could partially account for the inability of several past studies
to verify facilitated communication-user originated output.
----------
J Autism Dev Disord 1996 Feb;26(1):43-58
Evaluating the impact of facilitated communication on the
communicative competence of fourteen students with autism.
Bomba C, O'Donnell L, Markowitz C, Holmes DL
Eden Family of Services, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate facilitated communicat-
ion (FC) as an augmentative or alternative communication system
for 14 students attending the Eden Institute in Princeton, NJ.
All participants had an independent diagnosis of autism and
standardized testing revealed significant deficits in adaptive
behavior across all developmental domains. A pretest-posttest
design was utilized to (a) determine if any of the participants
were immediately capable of communicating through FC (b) if
necessary, instruct the participants in the use FC, and (c)
determine if this instruction had any impact on their ability
to use FC. At the end of 10 weeks of instruction, no participants
were able to produce functional, typed communication. Findings
are consistent with other quantitative studies that find no
support for the cause-effect relationship proposed by FC
proponents.
Kurt Foster
. I do have a strong emotional interest in FC because my own 26 year old
. son Ben uses FC, but I have a stronger interest in providing what is
. best for my own son. Also, I feel a duty as a human being to help others
. who could benefit from FC, which is made much harder to do by the
. regular rebroadcast of a now 4-1/2 year old show, Frontline's "Prisoners
. of Silence." I sincerely believe that someone does have an agenda to
. reinforce this negative public impression of facilitated communication.
.
First let me retract my statement that you "have an agenda". Clearly,
your own reasons for wanting FC to be valid are honest ones. They don't
MAKE FC valid, unfortunately. They do help me understand why you would
WANT it to be, though.
I note in this thread, citations for several published studies on FC
which all came to the same conclusion as the tests described on the
FRONTLINE broadcast -- it's the "facilitator", not the autistic person,
doing the communicating. Do the people who did THOSE studies, and the
staff at the journal publishing them, all have "agendas" too? I don't
think so, unless you consider seeking the truth "an agenda".
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gcqfu$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>
> In <6gcf69$n9n$1...@ash.ridgecrest.ca.us> theh...@ridgecrest.ca.us
> (Dave/Kristin Hall) writes:
> >
> >gol...@shani.net wrote:
> >: It seems that several times a month, when discussing other matters,
> people on
> >: different newsgroups choose to attack facilitated communication.
> for example,
> >: in article <6g9q00$1...@panix.com>,
> >
> >So, uh....what in the heck is facilitated communication?
>
> It's a lot like a ouija board. Somebody takes the hand of a
> handicapped person, and moves it for them (or "steadies it" while they
> move it). And gosh, the answers they give are then a lot better, and
> their understanding and IQ all of a sudden sometimes look normal.
> Except that if you make the "fascilitating" person go away when
> questions are being asked, then come back when the question is being
> answered, the person being helped gets a lot more impaired in
> understanding again.
You have just described the experiment done by Michael Weiss, Ph.D. in
psychology, with Kenny Jr. being facilitated by his individual teacher (all
of whom I personally have met) and Kenny Jr. could successfully answer
detailed questions about a story he was told when his facilitator was made to
go away. Michael Weiss had previously given an IQ test to my son Ben using
FC, and, although the facilitator was not made to go away, Ben correctly
answered several questions which Michael Weiss and the facilitator did not
know! Ben would have been included in this same type of experiment if he had
not gone to Israel to start a yeshiva for adults with autism using
facilitated communication, where he still is nearly four years later as one
of seven full-time participants.
> Strange to tell. And the same for other cases
> where you blind the fascilitator The more carefully you control the
> tests, the more bogus it looks. James Randi has made fools of a number
> of these people, but they just keep coming back. Most of the
> fascilitators are NOT being dishonest, BTW-- it's just that such
> behavior seems to be a valuable route into the subconscious of many
> people. It used to be called "automatic writing" or "spirit writing"
> in the days (last century) when you didn't have a mentally handicapped
> or cerebral palsey victim hooked in, and ALL you had was the person
> with the pencil, apparently writing things they didn't intend to, or
> which didn't seem to be coming from them. You don't even have to have
> writing. Think of trance-channeling.
All of the "leaders" supporting Facilitated Communication would vehemently
deny that there is anything spiritual involved. My own views are different,
but I know it is not bogus in almost all if not all cases.
>
> It's hard to tell if fascilitated communication is bogus for EVERY
> SINGLE CASE, of course. But it appears to be for most of them. It's
> done an incredible amount of damage. One problem is that raw stuff
> which comes from the unconscious of the fascilitator tends to have
> awfully raw content. It is, after all, the unconsious mind. So
> retarded people suddenly and very articulately start accusing people
> around them of sexual misconduct. Witch hunts ensue, as you can
> imagine. I'm awfully glad never to have been part of one of these
> personally, but there's a lot of literature out there on the
> phenomenon. In some ways it also bears some resemblance to "recovered
> memory" stuff, in which again the person helping the memory "recovery"
> is planting, quite subconsciously" some memories that aren't those of
> the person getting the "help."
>
> Steve Harris, M.D.
>
In Israel, there has never been a reported case of facilitated communication
(FC) resulting in charges of sexual misconduct. Also, I am aware of the
analogy to "recovered memory" (which victimized one of my own siblings) but I
was the facilitator with a person with autism who facilitated the complete
innocence of the parent accused by an eye witness! Unfortunately, I knew
that FC testimony would not be accepted in that jurisdiction and the parent
had to wait a year before the charges were finally dismissed. I am sure
that no one ever had a "recovered memory" of innocence of charges of sexual
misconduct in the face of an eye witness. Given the misfortune in my own
family from a "recovered memory" I wish this analogy was not made so often.
gol...@shani.net
In article <L6cK1AwZ...@io.com>,
eig...@io.com wrote:
>
> In our last episode <6gc7nr$4d9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> the lovely and talented gol...@shani.net
> broadcast on alt.folklore.science,sci.skeptic:
>
> |of a now 4-1/2 year old show, Frontline's "Prisoners of Silence." I
> |sincerely believe that someone does have an agenda to reinforce this negative
> |public impression of facilitated communication.
>
> the world today. Just about anyone could set up an experiment
> in his living room -- no one needs a major research facility or
> a grant to show that FC is a crock. It just takes a few pictures
> and a piece of cardboard.
>
> Seek psychiatric help.
>
> --
> Lars Eighner
To Lars Eighner:
In my living room I also had a 22 year-old son with autism who never talked
nor independently typed nor wrote. Who do you have in your living room to
carry out your proposed experiment? If you do not have access to such a
person with so-called severe disabilities, please explain the rational basis
for your above statements. Actually, in preparation for testing by Dr.
Howard Shane, we did carry out your proposed experiment and my son could not
name the pictures.
Although I did have contact with an excellent psychiatrist, we followed a
different route in deciding upon our son Ben's future. If you are sincerely
concerned about the fate of such a fellow human being, please feel free to
send me private e-mail.
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gdcjd$hjk$1...@news1.rmi.net>,
Actually, they or their sponsors do have "agendas". The people doing these
studies are usually involved in multimillion dollar programs providing
extremely expensive residential care for persons with autism - usually at
$150,000 a year per person. Gina Green, for example, works at the New
England Center for Autism, with a budget of about twenty million dollars a
year. Also lawyers defending persons charged with sexual misconduct or who
are successfully suing governments and getting $750,000 jury awards have an
interest in designing tests that they know the persons with severe
communication disorders could never pass (these lawyers often have decades of
experience with helping to design other such tests to obtain extremely
expensive residential care for persons with autism, at the sole expense of
the underfunded public schools).
On the other hand, researchers who support persons with severe disabilities
in cost effective community programs, such as Michael Weiss, Ph.D., are able
to design tests that persons with disabilities can pass, and find staff at
other peer-reviewed journals who will publish their articles. Unfortunately,
where there is more money, there seem to be more people designing tests to
continue a multibillion dollar human service industry funded by the American
taxpayers. By the way, my own 26 year-old son Ben, who uses FC in his program
in Israel, does not receive one penny nor one agura of American or Israeli
taxpayer money.
gol...@shani.net
l...@pixar.com
In article <6gcj4d$f09$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
gol...@shani.net wrote:
>
> In article <6gbpo7$b74$1...@atlantis.pixar.com>,
> l...@pixar.com (Larry Gritz) wrote:
> >
> > The test is simple: totally blindfold the facilitator, and see if
> > the patient still produces meaningful text. The only people who
> > can pass this test are those who are highly functioning enough that
> > they don't really need the facilitator anyway.
> The Frontline show was first broadcast 4-1/2 years ago, not just a couple of
> years ago, but for some reason is regularly repeated despite its "ancient"
> age. As I stated before, please look at the material on the web at:
> <http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealccinc/FrontA.htm> an article with several
> links entitled "Prisoners of Silence: What Frontline Didn't Tell You" by
> Chris Borthwick. Please do me the favor of reading this material and then
> tell these newsgroups what you think about facilitated communication.
OK, here's what I thought: this web site makes a couple of ad hominum
attacks and also makes some (potentially valid) criticism about the
content of the program. The content criticism is interesting (stuff
along the lines of, they didn't tell about experiment XXX that they
filmed, though it seemed to support FC). Without knowing the rigor
of the tests that they left out, it's hard to comment. But it's hard
to edit a documentary down to 1 hour and get a clear message across,
and not all footage or quotes can be included. I'm willing to chalk
up these oversights to necessary decisions of the editing process.
I was really hoping that there might be something substantial on the
Web site that Mr. Golden pointed to. But what was especially
disappointing is that it didn't address any of the hard questions
which call FC into serious doubt. (More on that below.)
> What is clearly true is that you agree with the statement of Carl
> Fink that I believe in something that clearly is not true - but
> please give me your basis for agreeing with such a strong statement.
> Your reply is anxiously awaited.
OK, here it is:
The claim is that certain (usually autistic) individuals with severe
cognitive and communicative disorders -- totally illiterate and
nonverbal, often completely noncommunicative -- can be aided by a
human "facilitator". The facilitator holds or steadies the patient's
hand while the patient types at a keyboard or points to a letter pad.
The claim is that many of these autistics show surprising literacy,
sometimes equal or superior to normal children of their age, and type
out very detailed and literate descriptions of their inner worlds and
what they really want in life.
While clearly exciting, there are several problems that, on face value
alone, make FC dubious:
* There's no explanation why this works -- the link between holding
somebody's hand and their suddenly showing cognitive abilities where
none was evident before.
* The patients often appear disinterested, or have expressions or
verbalizations which do not correspond to what they are typing.
* Some patients, when doing this, are not even looking at the keyboards!
(While generally, the facilitators themselves are staring intently
at the keys.)
* It's hard to imagine where the "superliteracy" came from. How does
a child who has never talked or been in a real school learn to spell,
let alone compose sentences better than most normal children? How
did they become exposed to the subjects that they can now elequently
discuss?
That doesn't prove anything, but it sure makes one suspicious. In
light of these prima facie objections alone (particularly the last
two), we can at least classify FC as an "extraordinary claim". You
know what they say about what kind of evidence is required for
extraordinary claims.
The alternate hypothesis, which is that it's the facilitator who is
doing the communicating, explains all of these difficulties
perfectly. And it's easy to understand how a caregiver eager to
hear a voice from a patient, can honestly and subconsciously be
doing the communicating himself.
Now, these are just hypothesis -- though one fits the facts very
well and the other has a bunch of unanswered questions. Still,
sometimes extraordinary claims do turn out to be true. So we have
to test it. A typical test goes like this:
1. A number of questions (perhaps identifying objects) are asked, in
the normal facilitator-patient manner (both can see or hear the
question).
2. Questions are shown to both, but each one sees a *different*
question!
3. Only the patient sees the question.
Repeat many times and with many patients.
Basically, all of the well controlled studies show that: Trials of
type #1 show an apparent facilitator effect. Trials of type #2 tend
to produce answers to the question that the facilitator sees, not the
one that the patient sees. And trials of type #3 do not produce
answers that apply to any question involved in the test.
The obvious conclusion from such a study with that outcome (as all the
controlled studies do) is that it's the facilitator, not the patient,
who is doing the communicating.
Now, it's totally understandable how a completely honest facilitator
can fall into this trap of subconsciously directing the patient's hand.
There's no question that these are unbelievably caring people who have
only the patient's best interest at heart.
But that doesn't change the fact that FC doesn't work. Moreover,
there are a number of cases where patients, through FC, have made
rather bizarre accusations of sexual and other abuse. Again, the
inconsistencies in their stories combined the total inability to
reproduce communication under controlled conditions, has managed to
dispose of most of these cases, but generally not before someone has
been falsely accused and sometimes imprisoned.
I believe that a basic right of these patients is to speak for
themselves -- even if they have nothing to say. To put words in
their mouths is an indignity that robs them of who they really are.
It's disrespectful for us to pretend that they are something that
they are not. That's the danger of FC, and why I'm mystified at
why caregivers don't consider the onus on themselves to be *really*
sure -- in the epistimological and methodological sense, not merely
by wishful thinking -- that FC really works.
-- lg
--
Larry Gritz Pixar Animation Studios
l...@pixar.com Richmond, CA
Peter Pundit
In article <352546...@iname.com>, David Dixon <dpd...@iname.com> says:
>
>Miriam P. Rogers wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> Touching and holding is an act of compassion and shared humanity and > an important part of what it means to be a nurse - not science.
>
>
>I agree with that sentiment. I cite as an example, a pre-teen or teen
>
>Similarly, a touch or a holding of hands can also be of therapeutic
>
You raise an important point about the effect TT is having on
language. The word "touch" has traditional connotations of *physical*
contact. I concur that physical touch has long been recognized as
having therapeutic value to recipients (e.g. - a mother holding her
infant child). TT proponents claim physical contact is unnecessary.
If TT is indeed as bogus as this experiment suggests, how ironic it
would be that TT practioners have, all along, been only inches away
from administering *real* healing power. Ignorance notwithstanding,
redefining the word "touch" to mean NOT touch smacks of evil intent.
Humans are so gullible.
Carl Fink
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 23:50:19 -0600, gol...@shani.net <gol...@shani.net> wrote:
>
>I was not a science teacher as you were, but I personally know Michael Weiss,
>who has a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University, who has a
>peer-reviewed article published in the July 1996 Journal of Mental
>Retardation, which provided scientific evidence for the validity of
> . . . would you do me
>the favor of reading that article (which I read but do not feel competent to
>objectively judge) and report your findings to these newsgroups?
Sure, but I work, so I won't be able to get to a decent library until
this weekend -- and since I'm not a college student or professor I may
have a hard time finding it.
> Also,
>please disclose your factual basis for your statement that I believe
>"something that's clearly not true." Thanks.
Unfair -- I said that FC was an example of believing something clearly
false. I also specifically allowed for the possibility that *you*
might know of a case in which it worked. I'm quite skeptical, but if
you have evidence, I can be persuaded. It surely didn't and doesn't
work in . . . well, in every case I'm aware of in which FC was
actually *tested*.
Again, you haven't given a bit of *evidence* that FC works, just an
assertion. (The paper might be evidence, but I won't know that until
I locate a copy. Does Dr. Weiss have a web page?)
I should mention a bias I have: many psychologists are
pseudoscientists. Some are excellent scientists, but they're a
minority.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Member, Skeptics Society and James Randi Educational Fund.
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gej83$mm$1...@carlf.dialup.access.net>,
Thanks for the very civil reply. I did not mean to be unfair and I accept
your clarification of your position. I look forward to your comments on the
article by Michael Weiss. To the best of my knowledge, Michael Weiss is a
real scientist who does real research. Indeed, originally, he was a skeptic
about facilitated communication but eventually became a believer based on
extensive personal experience (which took place before he met my own son Ben
who uses FC).
Kurt Foster
[sci.med.nursing cut from ng's]
In <6gebl4$ef4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> in sci.skeptic, l...@pixar.com wrote:
[long, interesting analysis snipped]
. I believe that a basic right of these patients is to speak for
. themselves -- even if they have nothing to say. To put words in
. their mouths is an indignity that robs them of who they really are.
. It's disrespectful for us to pretend that they are something that
. they are not. That's the danger of FC, and why I'm mystified at
. why caregivers don't consider the onus on themselves to be *really*
. sure -- in the epistimological and methodological sense, not merely
. by wishful thinking -- that FC really works.
.
I got an E-mail from Mr. Golden asserting that ALL studies unfavorable
to FC are being done by people who "have agendas". My conclusion is, the
man's mind is absolutely closed on the topic, and rational discussion of
it with him is impossible.
Kurt Foster
Let's see if I've got this straight. You dismiss out of hand ALL
studies whose results are unfavorable to FC, with the unproven,
broad-brush ad-hominem assertion that the people doing the studies (or
their sponsors) "have an agenda".
How convenient. You don't have to bother considering the studies
themselves on their merits. You just implicitly accuse the people doing
them of committing scientific fraud, without a shred of evidence, and for
the sole reason that you personally can't accept the results.
If I were one of the people doing those studies, or the publishers of
one of the journals carrying them, I would give you the choice of issuing
a retraction and an apology, or having your sorry ass sued for libel.
One thing is crystal clear. You have chosen to close your mind totally
on the subject of FC, so rational discussion of it with you is impossible.
Ken Nelson
Any sort of pre-employment tests like lie test or drug test is
really an attempt of the employer to screen out some folks to get a purer
sample of the population to choose employees from. Some druggees or liers
slip through and some non-druggees or non-liers get screened out. however,
the resulting population has a lower percentage of these undesirables than
the original population. This is accomplished at a cost of screening out
some of the innocent.
If it is very very important that certain people be screened out,
you give them a security clearance at a cost of about $100,000 apiece. That
is what the FBI and the military does. But were are talking here about
simple cheap tests.
If the position is a job at McDonnalds, it,s not too important
to screen these folks out. People applying for better jobs are not normally
subject to this; its the high powered security check or nothing.
Now if you believe that it is worth rejecting some innocent folk
to reject the some guilty, you are for the tests; if you believe the contrary,
you are against the tests.
regards ken
Kurt Ullman
In article <3532510f...@news.supernews.com>, ag...@aol.com wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 07:17:20 GMT,r...@sonic.net (ric carter) wrote:
>polygrapher reported I had lied on one or more questions. I assure
>you I did not. (Maybe I'm lying. <g> Seriously, what motive would I
>have here to lie? The reader doesn't know who I am, so I have nothing
>to hide or persuade for.) I wonder how many times the VSA test would
>have accused me of lying?
The VSA is said to give less false reading then polygraph (but less is
a relative term). BTW, at least in the US, it is illegal to require polygraph
or anything else except in very special circumstances (Security clearances,
etc.). The US Supreme Court handed down a decision a week or two indicating
that polygraphs still couldn't be admitted in court cases (and since it was
8-1 and written by Clarence Thomas it had to include the Law & Orders types on
the bench).
------------------------------------------------------
"One of the striking differences between a lie and cat is that a cat has only nine lives."
-Mark Twain
gol...@shani.net
In article <6gg1ad$96m$1...@news1.rmi.net>,
For the record, I never even thought the above statements that you just
attributed to me. Please read my actual words again and you will not find
what you just wrote. However, in the future I will be more careful and I
hope you will be too. Also, it has been my experience that a person often
attributes to others what he is really thinking. Psychologists call this
type of thought process "projection." Of course, i do not know you well
enough to determine if my statement applies to you, so please do not read
such a personal statement into my general words.
Art
Grant Edwards
gol...@shani.net wrote:
: > It's a lot like a ouija board. Somebody takes the hand of a
: > handicapped person, and moves it for them (or "steadies it" while
: > they move it). And gosh, the answers they give are then a lot
: > better, and their understanding and IQ all of a sudden sometimes
: > look normal. Except that if you make the "fascilitating" person
: > go away when questions are being asked, then come back when the
: > question is being answered, the person being helped gets a lot
: > more impaired in understanding again.
:
: You have just described the experiment done by Michael Weiss,
: Ph.D. in psychology, with Kenny Jr. being facilitated by his
: individual teacher (all of whom I personally have met) and Kenny
: Jr. could successfully answer detailed questions about a story he
: was told when his facilitator was made to go away. Michael Weiss
: had previously given an IQ test to my son Ben using FC, and,
: although the facilitator was not made to go away, Ben correctly
: answered several questions which Michael Weiss and the facilitator
: did not know!
If it is true that the facilitator is not providing information input,
then he is merely acting as a mechanical stabilizer for the hand of
the disabled individual. It should be pretty straight-forward (and
way cheaper) to design a mechanical apparatus to do the same thing.
Either a simple mechanical system with some damping and counterweights
(like a stedicam rig), or something more sophisticated like servos.
Has this been done? If so, how did it work? If not, why not?
If you were disabled wouldn't you prefer a bit of independance? I
would think I'd rather have a device that allowed me to do something
myself than depending on another person.
--
Grant Edwards
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) says:
>
>You are correct, of course, that merely because one of the TT claims
>("sense human energy fields") is false, their other claims are not
>automatically false.
Agreed.
>What you're ignoring is the utter lack of any
>evidence whatever that TT works.
I agree that the efficacy of the procedure should be proven before
it becomes an accepted practice. I have not thoroughly researched
the subject, so I don't know whether or not there is any evidence in
favor of the practice.
> Practitioners in general won't
>permit their claims to be tested -- does that sound like the act of a
>confident, reasonable person?
I have never seen any substantiation to this claim either.
--
DS Caprette
"There's a little truth in all jive, and a little jive in all truth."
-- Leonard Q. Barnes
gol...@shani.net
In article <BOMW.28$uA3.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
gra...@visi.com (Grant Edwards) wrote:
>
> gol...@shani.net wrote:
reasonable. I do believe efforts to use mechanical devices have been
tried with limited success, but probably those persons who might have
progressed to such a level instead progressed to complete independence
of any physical support.
I understand why such an approach of mechanical devices would not work for
someone like my own son, but I am reluctant to mention such ideas at this
time. Although others who read these newsgroups do not display the great
patience needed to properly discuss these matters, I hope you will be patient
and that I will be able to discuss my ideas about the underlying mechanism
that explains facilitated communication at a later time.
John Thompson
That the benefit of therapeutic touch may derive from a "placebo
effect" need not diminish its effectiveness. The placebo effect
is a well documented phenomenon that serves to describe a variety
of poorly understood physiological responses to the external
environment. There is much we do not yet understand about the
relationship between physiology, the endocrine system and the
external environment, for example. As far as I'm concerned if
therapeutic touch works for you, go for it. What does bother me,
though, is the apparent attempt at putting a scientific veneer on
the practice of therapeutic touch by describing it as an "energy
field" etc. If it truly is an energy field it should be
detectable by known physical means; the characteristics of both
energy and fields are well understood by science. If it is not
an energy field (and I suspect it is not) then we would be
deceiving ourselves and wasting time and effort by trying to
understand the phenomenon in terms of energy fields. Better to
concentrate efforts in understanding the physiology of the
placebo effect to improve the effectiveness of techniques like
therapeutic touch.
-John (John.T...@ibm.net)
dr...@concentric.net
Well stated, John. The placebo effect is real, sometimes it results in
clinical benefits, and it is poorly understood. Gaining a better
understanding of the interaction between sensation and the interactions of
the body's systems would be a much more productive pursuit than chasing after
Qi or some other invisible energy field for which no physical evidence has
ever been published and IMO probably doesn't exist.
I have no objection to clinical application of a technique whose underlying
mechanisms are not understood, as long as no harm results and there is _good_
reason to expect benefit to the patient. I do object to the use of
pseudoscientific jargon to espouse unproven or unprovable claims. And I
strongly object when the use of unproven techniques keeps a person from
medically sound ones - That is quackery in a nutshell.
I think handling a cat or dog can be theraputic. I don't know why, but it
often works for me. Try one today.
One more thought - Some doctors end up not being surgeons because they are
klutzes or can't see well enough to do it safely. Prescribing an incorrect
drug or dosage can cause harm. Chiropractic manipulations done incorrectly
sometimes result in injury. Question for Beth or anyone else who advocates
Theraputic Touch" Can a TT practioner do harm by improperly manipulating the
"energy field"?
David Voth
San Diego, California
In article <c1.2c.2Kzvdt$0gy@rhino_house.ibm.net>,
john.t...@ibm.net wrote:
<snip>
> That the benefit of therapeutic touch may derive from a "placebo
> effect" need not diminish its effectiveness. The placebo effect
> is a well documented phenomenon that serves to describe a variety
> of poorly understood physiological responses to the external
> environment. There is much we do not yet understand about the
> relationship between physiology, the endocrine system and the
> external environment, for example. As far as I'm concerned if
> therapeutic touch works for you, go for it. What does bother me,
> though, is the apparent attempt at putting a scientific veneer on
> the practice of therapeutic touch by describing it as an "energy
> field" etc. If it truly is an energy field it should be
> detectable by known physical means; the characteristics of both
> energy and fields are well understood by science. If it is not
> an energy field (and I suspect it is not) then we would be
> deceiving ourselves and wasting time and effort by trying to
> understand the phenomenon in terms of energy fields. Better to
> concentrate efforts in understanding the physiology of the
> placebo effect to improve the effectiveness of techniques like
> therapeutic touch.
>
> -John (John.T...@ibm.net)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Carl Fink
On 8 Apr 1998 15:47:52 GMT, Douglas S. Caprette
>
>In a previous article, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) says:
>
>> Practitioners in general won't
>>permit their claims to be tested -- does that sound like the act of a
>>confident, reasonable person?
>
>I have never seen any substantiation to this claim either.
Any one (or group) could claim a 1.1 million dollar prize by
demonstrating their abilities. None have even offered to do so.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
"Ready to begin speaking in technobabble, Sir."
Alien technician in "Buck Godot" by Phil Foglio
john d.
ceprn () wrote:
: Only in Nursing would pure quackery be accepted as a treatment. What
: does that say about us? That we are so desparate that we have to try
: and find something that sets us apart from Doctors as a profession
: that we'll make it up?
I've been told that in USA, nurses can receive "continuing education
credit", or something like that, for attending Reiki seminars.
Reiki is a fradulent laying-on-hands healing technique. If true,
then I'd conclude that nursing associations in USA are administered
by a bunch of morons, who probably have good intentions though.
Karl Brace
Aaron D. Ball wrote:
> There's certainly a negative placebo effect when it comes to drugs,
> though: I'll wager that a lot of people react better *psychosomatically*
> when they use "natural" drugs, since they feel more comfortable with
> something uncontaminated by the devil science.
I agree. And the negative effect is larger for common drugs,
like aspirin. People who know they are taking "just aspirin"
might not expect it to work very well, while someone who takes
the brand new, more expensive pain reliever might be getting a
larger placebo effect benefit on top of straight drug effect.
For example, my brother, a pharmacist, said that in double-
blind studies aspirin is particularly effective for menstrual
cramps, and ibuprofin is only marginally better, but when women
KNOW what they are taking they perceive ibuprofin to work MUCH
better, because aspirin is, well, just aspirin. This was
especially true when ibuprofin was only available as the
prescription drug Motrin (in the early 80's when this study was
done).
Karl (whose sister is also a pharmacist)
Brace
Howard Black
Carl Fink wrote:
> On 8 Apr 1998 15:47:52 GMT, Douglas S. Caprette
> <au...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> >
> >In a previous article, ca...@panix.com (Carl Fink) says:
> >
> >> Practitioners in general won't
> >>permit their claims to be tested -- does that sound like the act of a
> >>confident, reasonable person?
> >
> >I have never seen any substantiation to this claim either.
>
> Any one (or group) could claim a 1.1 million dollar prize by
> demonstrating their abilities. None have even offered to do so.
Actually, according to the most recent Time magazine, Randi did have
one taker. She failed.
Dave/Kristin Hall
Karl Brace (br...@cadtls.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: Aaron D. Ball wrote:
:
: > There's certainly a negative placebo effect when it comes to drugs,
: > though: I'll wager that a lot of people react better *psychosomatically*
: > when they use "natural" drugs, since they feel more comfortable with
: > something uncontaminated by the devil science.
Interesting. I'm the exact opposite. I mean, if I pop an aspirin, I've
got a pretty good idea of what I'm getting. But if I drink some willow
bark concoction(sp!) I'm wondering to myself, "So, what percentage of this
stuff is actually bug/bird droppings?"
In my book, when it comes to drugs, synthetic GOOD, natural BAD.
Jim Rogers
Essentially, drawing on "statistically improving the applicant pool"
with such an inaccurate measure that can do _some_ very rough screening
like a polygraph is hardly different from arguing for job screening
based on all sorts demographics that statistically improve or worsen the
job-performance characteristics you're screening for. You could look at
crime statistics, for instance, and screen based on race, religion,
geographic origin, marital and parental status, sexual orientation, etc,
and come up with just as "rational" an argument.
There is a reason such demographic screening is disallowed; it's called
"justice." For the same reason, polygraph screening should be
disallowed.
Jim