Talk:Therapeutic touch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.
This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Proposed Merger with Healing Touch
Therapeutic Touch is not in Healing Touch and should not be merged. They are two separate modalities. Healing Touch would have its own category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.104.249 (talk) 05:17, December 20, 2005 (UTC)
- They're just different franchises of the same hogwash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk) 07:31, June 13, 2006 (UTC)
As I write this, Healing touch does not seem to have an article (it appears to have been subsequently deleted). That, together with the fact that the merger was proposed on Oct. 13 and no one has furthered it, I am going to remove the merger note. --TeaDrinker 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"two separate modalities"? Does the the first writer in this section care to define that in a verifiable physical science sense? If the definition of "modality" here is just mumbo-jumbo hogwash, then the distinction between two modalities is as well.Hubbardaie 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- By your logic Therpeutic Touch shouldn't even have its own page then. Since there is no hard scientific evidence to prove the concrete existence of either, why should they be merged or even have a page at all? -Bones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.183.81 (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The external links section is going out of hand
The external links section is going out of hand Kl4m 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Perhaps
Maybe calling these alternative therapies "meditation" would impart some credibility? When it gets to the point where my tax dollars will cover it, then maybe I'll open my eyes to it. Overall, I'll take a massage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.10.49 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comments left in article
Bcttnmembership (talk · contribs) left these comments in the article; they're inappropriate for article space, so thought they'd be useful here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
In response to Ms. Rosa, I offer the following:
"To the Editor.—As a clinician, I am surprised that THE JOURNAL elected to address the important and controversial issue of Therapeutic Touch (TT) with such a simpleminded, methodologically flawed, and irrelevant study. The experiments described are an artificial demonstration that some number of self-described mystics were unable to "sense the field" of the primary investigator's 9-year-old daughter.1 This hardly demonstrates or debunks the efficacy of TT. The vaguely described recruitment method does not ensure or even suggest that the subjects being tested were actually skilled practitioners. More important, the experiments described are not relevant to the clinical issue supposedly being researched. Therapeutic Touch is not a parlor trick and should not be investigated as such. Rather, it is a therapeutic technique that may be discovered to require active involvement by a genuinely ill patient, as the authors themselves convolutedly acknowledge in their citation of Krieger's work. "
The above is extracted from the JAMA website, and anyone who reads Ms Rosa's study should do so with a grain of salt. I might add that there also are strict standards for Registered Practitioners of TT in British Columbia and most other Canadian provinces.
I recently published a book with John Wiley & Sons "How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business". I briefly discussed Emily Rosa's approach to make a point about experimental methods. Her method was completely scientifically sound in that if the subjects (the TT) could do what they claimed they could do, then this test would have had these results it. But they could not. Its also true that a placebo-controlled clinical trial proving the claims of TT would have been sufficient to refute Emily Rosa's claims. But although many TT's have tried to find flaws in Rosa's experiment, none have proposed an experiment that would prove their point. In fact, from what I've seen of the "refutations", none are apparently familiar with experimental methods at a mathematical level. What matters is that she tested something in a controlled, randomized way that - according to her subjects - they should have been able to do and with a sample size easily sufficent (if you do the math, that is) to demonstrate the results. What does not matter at all is that she was 9, she was the daughter of the primary investigator, whether someone labels the study "irrelevant" or whether there are "standards" for TT in Canada. If "qualified" TT would have done better, then why is the medical world still waiting for a clinical trial that would prove TT works when "standards" are met by the therapist?Hubbardaie 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Krieger study
This edit removed reference to the 1975 Krieger study. As she founded the modality, this study would seem to be of importance to the article out of proportion to its quality. Would anyone object to its (properly weighted) inclusion as part of a historical overview? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, though it might be better to put it in History, not scientific research. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
