Do Paranormal Healing Techniques Work Better Than Placebos?

NOTE TO READER. Here's another lively exchange. This time it's between a self-described Clinical Herbalist, Master Energy Therapist, Foot Reflexologist, Aromatherapist, Sound and Light Healer and myself. I have changed the names and places to ensure privacy. Again, the important discussion here is not about the adherents, but about the subject, in this case, the efficacy of paranormal healing techniques. To make it easier to track the exchange, I have colored "Linda's" responses in blue.

Bruce Lee September 11 at 9:10am

Linda, I'm a friend of Jeff and saw your comment. Question: What forms of "complimentary/alternative" medicine do you practice?

Linda September 11 at 12:29pm

Hi, Bruce, I am a Clinical Herbalist, Master Energy Therapist, Foot Reflexologist, Aromatherapist, Sound and Light Healer (energy medicine.) The only thing I CANNOT do is: Acupuncture. Most of my gifts of Spirit are "innate", but I put myself thru 2 years of training at a Healing School in (state) to "qualify" what I do, and can call myself an "Holistic Health Care Practitioner" now. Many people are interested in these therapies (they work!), but cannot pay out of pocket. I can't JOIN the AMA, nor do I want to do so . . I do have a Master's degree as well, so I have been formally trained as an Educator. I taught school for many years, so I can EDUCATE re: nutrition, and the herbs. Thanks for writing ~ I hope you live in (city)! I need new clients . . .;-))

Bruce Lee September 13 at 4:52pm

Thanks very much for the reply Linda. I'm afraid that "alternative" healing practices such as those you mention could benefit from someone within that field taking the lead and proving, through the use of standardized scientific testing, the efficacy of those treatments in curing disease. The huge breakthroughs of modern medicine (curing polio, typhoid, tetanus, yellow fever, smallpox, diphtheria, malaria, measles, etc.) happened only when treatment-based-on-anecdote was shown to be inexact and most often, ineffective. Too, modern medicine is refined every day by new discoveries, just the opposite of "ancient wisdoms" that seem to resist improvements in light of new knowledge. The evidence that scientifically substantiated medical practices have advanced the health of mankind is overwhelming. If someone makes a claim that a certain procedure or medicine cures the symptom of a disease, or even the disease itself, then the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. And in the 21st century, in America, that means (for good or ill) that the claim needs to be substantiated scientifically, and show real promise, in order to qualify for research dollars or insurance claims. Lots of people believe in the healing powers of alternative therapies. It can only be in the best interests of everyone to determine, once and for all, if these therapies are true cures, or simply manifestations of well-understood phenomenon such as the placebo effect. Folks such as Depak Chopra and Andrew Weil have deep pockets – perhaps the alternative treatment community should pressure them to invest in the necessary research that would legitimize the treatments. Just an idea...

Linda September 13 at 9:40pm

Well, my friend. You are entitled to your "position" re: alternative medicine. I RESPECT THAT POSITION. My sig other is a SCIENTIST with a Ph.D. He was the ULTIMATE SCEPTIC until I "affected" multiple cures for his ills. There IS no proof to what I "do", and I will never try to convince you to BELIEVE. We Healers have been granted an incredible gift. I never asked for it; it just arrived, and I was confused for YEARS about what to do with it. Call it the "placebo effect", or whatever you wish. THER IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF. We are working in another "arena" of healing / another DIMENSION, if you will. Most people seek me out because SCIENCE has not worked for them. REMEMBER: THE MEDICAL SCHOOLS ARE FUNDED by Pharmaceutical Cos. M.D.s learn how to PRESCRIBE pharmaceuticals. END OF TOPIC. That's a FACT, JACK. What I offer is: TIME, caring, concern, appropriate treatment. I HAVE BEEN WELL TRAINED. I would like to pursue INTERESTING CONVERSATION about my world. BTW: I am practicing CATHOLIC, and my "ways" are in SYNC with my Church. Jesus said: "GO OUT AND DO WHAT I DO; any of you can do this ". . . LET'S become "friends", and pursue this dialog ~ I LOVE TO DEBATE any and all topics . . Blessings, Linda

Linda September 13 at 9:48pm

I LOVE great debate. I have met Jeff, and he knows I am "legit". Let's keep the conversation going, SHALL WE??? :-))

Bruce Lee September 14 at 11:03am

Perhaps I misspoke. What I was trying to address is your concern that health care doesn't currently reimburse the costs of many alternative treatments because such allotments are based only on scientifically proven techniques. I guess I was simply commenting on this fact. I do have a question, however, and please forgive me if it seems so simplistic: Why aren't alternative health treatments shown objectively to work any better than placebos? I mean, we're talking about reality here–either someone gets better or they don't. Why can't, say, homeopathy, be clearly shown to work better than distilled water? If it works, it should have solid evidence that it works. (e.g.: more people with a disease would get better after homeopathic treatment than from some other treatment. This has never been shown to be the case.) And again, we can't rely just on anecdote. For centuries, people got well after sessions of bloodletting, and anecdotally, the treatment appeared to work. Of course, now we know that people got better, not because of the treatment, but in spite of it.

Linda September 14 at 1:06pm

I could write a THESIS about my "world", but I will keep it short. :-) The body has an INNATE ability to HEAL ITSELF. The body SEEKS homeostasis. Even the Med. school students are taught: 90 per cent of your patients will get well, EVEN IF YOU DO NOTHING FOR THEM. Much of what we alternative people DO cannot be proved. There is simply too much MYSTERY in why / how our "medicine" works. Partly, it's the ATTITUDE of the patient, and partly it's my (our) connection to other "realms" / dimensions. My elevator speech is: "I am able to fascilitate / accelerate the body's innate ability to heal itself THROUGH THE POWER OF GOD (the Universe . . whatever you wish to call "IT.") Albert Einstein said "There are two ways to view the world. One is: EVERYTHING is a miracle. Another is: NOTHING is a miracle. Only ONE of the two views brings HAPPINESS." When you think of the world as ENERGY; (EVERYTHING is energy in this dimension and other dimensions); one cannot offer PROOF of action (what is observable and repeatable) in the world of quantum physics. That's part of the beauty of this work. SOMETIMES we cannot explain the "how." IT JUST IS. A HUGE part of the healing process requires the BELIEF that the therapy will work, AND belief in the THERAPIST. I guess I am back to the placebo effect . . but if a client feels BETTER after a treatment, IT DOESN'T MATTER if it's placebo, or the POWER of God, or ?????? . . it WORKED!!!

Bruce Lee September 14 at 3:44pm

I guess I would respond by asking, if people get better whether it's a placebo pill or chakra stone or healing touch, how can one determine the difference? Without evidence, how does one make a decision on determining cause and effect? If a person feels sick one day and undergoes healing touch and the next day feels better, is their illness responding to the treatment, or just the fact that the earth spun around again? Without testing and evidence, there's no way to know. Conversely, if a person is in a coma and has syphilis, and penicillin is administered, the syphilis is cured. No placebo effect necessary. Evidence-based medicine has a spectacular track record for curing disease, but I can think of no disease eradicated by so-called alternative treatments. I also can't imagine any reason why the purveyors of alternative forms of medicine would eschew evidence. After all, they are making a clear-cut claim: "Our methods work." It's entirely reasonable for those practitioners to want to substantiate those claims, thereby advancing the state of health for the benefit of all. Finally, if these treatments are indeed "mysterious," then why not do the research in an attempt to unravel that mystery? Mankind hasn't advanced its knowledge of the universe by being content to look at nature and say, "well, that's just the way it is–a mystery." (Religion does that.) Acceptance without inquiring is what people did in the Dark Ages, and life then was brutish and short. I guess what I'm saying is that, if tomorrow, a scientific study indicated that homeopathy (for example) cured people of disease, would homoeopathists reject the findings or embrace them? What if the reason the homeopathic medicine was found to work was based on clear adherence to known material behavior? Would practitioners reject that too, and insist instead that the cause should remain a "mystery?" One final thing: Perhaps no theory in the history of science has been tested as thoroughly and proved to be more predictable than the standard model of particle physics. If it was a "mystery," you and I would not be able to communicate via a computer. Such devices would never have been developed if not for the unerring accuracy and predictability of quantum theory.

Linda September 14 at 3:50pm Report

I want you to hear from my partner who is quite an accomplished Professional. His opinion will make more sense to you. He is a Research Scientist, and Human Factors Consultant, with a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology. He will put his particular "spin" on this weighty topic ~ I will have him write to you from here.

Linda’s Friend September 15 at 12:18pm Report

Bruce, I have read your discussion with Linda regarding alternative forms of health care. It is clear to me that you are well schooled in science (perhaps an engineer) and are asking valid questions. I have worked as a Research Psychologist (Ph.D. level) for most of my professional life and have had strong formal training in chemistry, physics, biology, statistics, experimental design, as well as human behavior. I also enjoy following the popular descriptions of progress in Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics.

As a scientist this is how I feel about the many modes of alternative health care. When we carry out experimental tests designed to determine the efficacy of various pharmaceuticals, we usually employ at least two independent variables: the pharmaceutical under test and a placebo. The placebo, by definition, is a chemically neutral substance that creates a belief on the part of a subject that they are in fact receiving something capable of cure. In this context, the placebo becomes “Belief.” Thus, the finely tuned experiment has two independent variables; a “drug” and “belief.”

As you know, many well designed experiments find that “Belief” (placebo) is more effective than the “drug” under test. From an experimenter’s perspective, the variable of Belief is shown to be statistically significant in terms of its effect.

At this juncture let’s address cause and effect. When we analyze our pharmaceutical we can separate-out the several substances that make it up and we can manipulate them intelligently. However, when we try to do the same with Belief, the causative factors are subjective in nature and subject to the individual differences of the subjects. As a result, the observability, repeatability, and describability of the Belief variable are compromised.

Given this situation we have only one alternative, to accept the demonstrated power of Belief to affect a change without knowing the several reasons why. This is not satisfying, but this is always the case when we are dealing with unknown phenomenon. Good example, we hypothesize that much of our cosmos is made up of dark matter. Further more it appears to be pulling our cosmos toward some predetermined spot in space. We can see the effects, but we have no notion of the cause.

I have come to believe that alternative forms of health care depend upon and manipulate one primary variable; Belief. This is true for acupuncture, hypnosis (accepted by the AMA), aroma therapy, energy therapy, etc, etc. Oh yes, let’s also throw in incantations by witch doctors! Anything that is “believed” can have a positive (or negative) observable and repeatable effect. We may not have precise control over the effect, or we may not be always be able to create belief on the part of a recipient, but if the belief is there good things can happen.

Beyond this we may never really know. But we do know that the effects of BELIEF---when it is in place--- can be demonstrated in a scientific laboratory. >>> (Linda’s Friend), Ph.D., 9/2009

Bruce Lee September 22 at 3:27pm

Good stuff. Thank you for taking the time to prepare this response.

A couple things:

Regarding the placebo effect (what you appear to find equivalent to belief). Evidence does seem quite convincing that such an effect exists, but not everyone agrees. (I point you to a 2001 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine entitled “Is the placebo powerless?” in which the researchers found “no justification for the use of placebos.”)

Regardless, “belief,” while it may provide a certain percentage of patients with relief, that relief is by far most commonly associated with subjective, self-reported maladies such as pain (albeit with expected measurable factors such as lower blood pressure or pulse rate.). No placebo has ever been shown mend a broken limb. Placebos work only if the patient is awake and aware.

That we don’t yet know exactly how the placebo effect may work (if indeed it exists), that’s no reason to give up and say, as you do, that “we may never know” anymore than we should give up trying to determine the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Indeed, our lack of understanding should make us redouble our efforts to find out.

I often hear believers in the paranormal claim that “science doesn’t know everything!” Exactly. That is science’s greatest strength. Unlike religion or belief in the paranormal or superstition, science doesn’t ever claim to have all the answers. It is the act of questioning that drives science and human knowledge forward. Without questions, science would cease to exist.

What I understood most about your response however is your acknowledgement that all of these beliefs (“…aroma therapy, energy therapy, etc, etc. Oh yes, let’s also throw in incantations by witch doctors!”) are, at their core, all simply manifestations of the same source as the placebo effect.

Which brings us to a question of ethics. Is it ethical for a doctor to prescribe a placebo? How about a psychic healer? Or a witch doctor? What difference does it make if the practitioner is ignorant of the placebo effect and sincerely believes that some imaginary energy (or spirit) is facilitating the treatment? What if the practitioner is fully aware of the placebo effect and is simply trading on the gullibility of the patient?

More important, however, are the consequences to those who have very real health issues (e.g. disease; mental illness; malnutrition) yet eschew the treatments proven effective by modern, scientifically substantiated medicine. How long will the woman wait to seek medical attention for the lump she feels in her breast while she undergoes orgone energy blasts or herbal or homeopathic rituals? In such cases, what is the responsibility of the “care giver,” especially one who really believes such things may affect a cure?

(Again, it’s probably worth noting here that none of those “treatments” has ever shown any evidence of efficacy higher than that predicted by the placebo effect.)

Ignorance can be bliss, but it can also be dangerous and outright harmful. Personally, I may feel it’s foolish to believe in, for example, astrology, but there’s no law against being a fool. (Besides, it’s unenforceable.) And telling someone that, because the moon is in the seventh house, they should be especially careful when traveling today, is probably harmless.

That said, I believe that those who position themselves as counselors, therapists and healers based on tenets that are entirely non-physical, and “treat” people who may be suffering from a very real physical or mental problems are tragically deluded at best and dangerous at worst.

Linda’s Friend September 23 at 7:05pm

"Bruce, It is a lot of fun to have conversations like this. As you know, many of our "heros" in science spurred each other's thinking as they sent letters back and forrth arguing their points-of-view. In a word, I don't disagree with any of your major points... they are well taken and represent typical scientific attitude. What I have come to apprreciate through the years is the importance of TLC (tender loving care) and the tremendous impact stress has on the health of body and mind. I don't believe there is any argument in this arena. From the vantage point of "woo," I support their efforts if they provide TLC and reduce stress. These two variables alone increase quality of life and decrease many causes of physical disability. Certainly, the "World of Woo" should only act in support of our best western medicine; but, when TLC is provided and stress is reduced, our best medicine has its best effect. Beyond this, there is mystery. But, life would not be much fun without mystery. There would be no more theory, no more hypotheses, and no more wonder :-)) My very best...

Is organically grown food better than conventionally grown food, or is it all just marketing hype?

TO THE READER: About three weeks ago, I received a mailed solicitation from a company offering the service of weekly delivery of freshly harvested produce. The company boasts that all the produce is raised organically, which means compliance with federal regulations regarding (among other things) the application of pesticides and fertilizers according to clearly defined "organic" practices. I contacted the company to inquire about some of the claims made in the mailer. They replied to my inquiries almost immediately and were exemplary in their graciousness and effort to address my concerns. These are just plain good folk, and I wish them the best. However, the exchange did present the opportunity for closer examination of some nagging issues regarding the credibility of some of the claims made by those promoting organic food production.

In this exchange, my e-mails are in blue and the responses from the producer are in black. I have purposely not included the name of the producer. The individual is not at issue here, but rather the claims being made by the industry.

FIRST COMMUNICATION – FROM BRUCE TO THE PRODUCER

Dear G – I received your mailer a couple of days ago and had a question regarding the copy headlined "EAT ORGANIC."

In it, the copy states, "It's just plain common sense; organic food is good food and contains more antioxidants and higher nutritional content than factory-farmed food."

I've looked seemingly everywhere, but I can find absolutely no scientifically backed evidence that indicates that food grown with organic farming standards is in any way more or less nutritious than factory farmed food. (Indeed, I discovered that nearly all "organic food" is produced by the same huge farming conglomerates who produce regular crops, often simply on a different portion of the same fields. I applaud your independence.)

Doesn't "organic" define the methods by which the produce is cultivated, not the the produce itself?

As a cooking enthusiast, I certainly appreciate the flavor difference of fresh-from-the-garden vegetables versus those that have been stored for long periods, but that seems to have nothing to do with how the vegetables were grown.

I suppose what I'm wondering is: Nutritionally, isn't a carrot a carrot, regardless of the type of fertilization and pesticides that were used during its growth?

Thanks for your time.

Bruce

_______________________________________________________________________

FIRST RESPONSE – FROM THE PRODUCER TO BRUCE

Hi Bruce,

We received your inquiry about the nutritional value of organic food and do appreciate your interest in discovering the difference between conventionally and organically farmed fruit and produce.

You hit the nail on the head when you said 'factory farmed' organic food and yes, indeed, the nutritional content of that produce is likely the same as any conventionally produced food.

What we see as a major difference is the rate of growth of a fruit or vegetable which contributes to the different nutritional/flavor content of any produce.

In order to produce produce that sells well in this country, farmers must produce a product that is large for its particular variety. As an example, let's say a cherry will normally grow to 10 grams in size with minimal fertilizer inputs. However, Americans want cherries that grow to 15 grams and will pay more for them. So farmers are obligated to overnitrate and overprune (overstimulate) our cherry trees so they'll produce larger fruit. This results in a fruit/vegetable that contains the same amount of cells as its smaller counterpart but the cells are larger. And where the difference in nutritional value comes into play is that larger celled produce contains about the same nutritional value as the smaller one.

If, on the other hand, a product is 'factory farmed' then the nitrogen inputs become the same as a conventional farm which essentially negates any advantage an organic product may have over a conventional one. And the lack of flavor is almost the same as anything produced conventionally.

The case we always make for the products we grow is that they're not overnitrated and our inputs are low enough to bring out the flavor that the fruit/veg was intended to have. They may not be king-sized but they sure taste good! Another analogy to nutritional content is how quality dog food manufacturers make a case for their dog food...their argument goes something like this...cheap dog food has all kinds of fillers in it and it takes a lot more volume of food for the dog to get the same nutritional value. That's kind of the same argument for properly grown organic food.

And one more thing that most consumers never think much about is that organic farms are inspected to make sure they comply with all the rules of growing organic food. And that goes for large farms as well. We are limited to a very small number of safe products we can use for pest control etc. but one thing is for sure...they're safe and won't kill anyone. That certainly can't be said for conventional farmers.

I make it a point to stay away from conventionally farmed products just for my own safety. I don't want to get sick and I don't want anyone in my family to get sick either. And having been a conventional farmer many years ago, it's almost scary how poisonous conventional pesticides are and what they can do to make us sick or kill us.

All conventional pesticides arrive on the farm in a concentrated form and are mixed with water before they're applied to crops. One drop of many of these pesticides will kill a human outright. What if the operator doesn't get the concentration right? What if he applies 3 gallons of a product to the tank mix instead of 3 ounces? This is not something to take lightly and think it can't happen. Many spray operators can't read. Many spray operators don't care. Many spray operators can't take instructions properly. Many spray operators make mistakes almost daily.

We're taking chances everytime we eat conventional food because 1. It's sprayed with deadly poisons and 2. The farm and produce is not inspected.

So if the nutritional value of organic produce is not enough to convince you to see a difference, then quite possibly the safety factor might be a good reason to consider always choosing organic for the health and safety of your family.

Thanks for thinking of us and thanks for taking the time to contact us.

All the best,

G

________________________________________________________________________

SECOND LETTER – FROM BRUCE TO PRODUCER

G – Thank you very much for your comprehensive response. It's a rare pleasure nowadays to have a company respond so quickly and with such care.

However, I couldn't help but note that some of the claims and concerns contained in your response don't appear to be substantiated with the information I have found. Specifically:

• You note your concerns about food safety. At least in the United States, the evidence seems to indicate that all foods (conventionally and organically farmed) have become much safer in the past thirty years or so. Ironically, this may stem from the growth of factory farming and the strict regulations enacted and enforced to ensure public safety. Also, food cleanliness is much better than in the past. Indeed, it appears that most of the food recalls (for salmonella and e-coli contamination) of the past decade or so were attributable to "organic" produce. How that happens exactly is probably tough to determine, but one possible source is the difference in using composted manure vs. chemically refined fertilizers, but it could be from any number of sources (dirty hands; bird or other animal contamination).

• Although I certainly appreciate your concern regarding farm worker safety and the potential hazards of "conventional" pesticides, I don't seem to be able to find any evidence that 1.) such poisonings actually occur frequently in the United States (in fact, I couldn't find a single instance; I was able to find instances of poisoning in undeveloped countries where handling regulations are probably more lax) and 2.) evidence that harmful levels of these pesticides remain on produce commonly available in the United States. Again, it appears that regulation and oversight has led to farming practices where farm workers are properly trained in the use of these potentially harmful chemicals. It looks like the dangers of other farm-related activities (such as driving the truck to market or climbing a ladder to pick fruit) may present a much greater level of real danger than the proper handling of pesticides.

• You make the claim to the effect that larger cherries have the same number of cells as smaller cherries, and seem to imply that, due to this, flavor is more concentrated in the smaller fruit. Really? I've been able to find no evidence that larger cherries have bigger cells. In all cases I can find, if an animal or plant is bigger, it's due exclusively to simply having more mass, attributable to more cells.

• Finally, the issue of taste. Again, in every controlled (blind) test that I have been able to find, it was determined that, generally, there was no clearly discernible difference in taste between organic and conventionally farmed foods. In my own experience, I do sometimes seem to be able to discern a flavor difference between foods that I believe might be attributed to freshness – a classic example being an apple picked directly from the tree versus one that has been stored in a Wenatchee warehouse for twelve months. But, just to be fair, I've not conducted even a simple blind comparison to test this. (I will soon.)

In summary, the benefits most often claimed for organic foods (some of which you appear to endorse) don't seem to have direct scientific evidence to substantiate them. As a matter of fact, looked at globally, it seems unequivocal that changes in farming technology, from genetics to chemically processed fertilizers and improved pesticides (safer and more specific), along with increases in distribution efficiencies, have resulted, not in higher incidences of harm, but quite the opposite. These techniques can reasonably be cited as the key factors in saving literally hundreds of millions of human beings from the terrible fate of death from starvation.

I have absolutely no issues with anyone, for whatever reasons they may have, preferring to spend their money on organically grown produce. However, with the information I have at the moment, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than that, regarding issues of taste, safety and environmental impact, the term "organic" may be little more an effective marketing/advertising device benefitting the sales of American food producers' profits more than consumers' health.

b

__________________________________________________________________________

SECOND RESPONSE – FROM THE PRODUCER TO BRUCE

Hi Bruce,

Got your message about my response and it sounds like you're fairly well convinced that there's no difference between organically farmed or conventionally farmed.

I can't give you any more perspective than I have in my previous correspondence and having farmed both ways for a long time at each, all I can tell you is what I already have said and that is that the safety issue is the number one reason I stay away from conventionally farmed produce. Those pesticides may not affect you or your family or anyone you know but the chances of killing someone or making someone sick is very real for the reasons I have already outlined.

I understand the reasons you have found and the research you have done to make convincing arguments to support conventional farming vs organic.

But just remember that you're talking to an expert in this field and that is me!!

It's just like when you want the best legal advice or the best doctor, you go out of your way to make sure you're making the right choice. Well you just found the best in this particular field and any of the answers I have given you are in fact the correct ones.

Good luck with your continuing research and I hope you will understand that the answers I have given you are based on observation from both sides of the fence over a long, long, way too long a period of time!! I just wish I had a much less experience because if that was the case then I would be a lot younger and would have way more time to talk to you about this (in some cases) very controversial subject!!

All the best!

G