Look at Homeopathy, my favorite form of traditional woo — would you say it provides a ‘plausible model’ for water having a memory (apparently a selective memory)
————-
The word biofield is invariably followed by a phrase such as “that is believed to penetrate and surround the human body,” clearly proposing it as theoretical rather than fact.
————————–
Like this?
“There is a biofield that is believed to penetrate and surround the human body”

It’s not that clear a proposal – the sentence suggests there is a biofield but you aren’t sure (“believe”) how it works
Consider:
“I have a team of fairies that live inside my eardrum, I believe this is how I hear”

————-
Keep in mind that whereas there is no scientific validation for the existence of qi, which acupuncture purports to manipulate, there is an impressive, and growing, body of research that supports the effectiveness of acupuncture for a wide range of conditions.
————————–
Except there is no credible evidence to support the existence of meridians or acupuncture points. Disease is NOT caused by a disruption in energy flow.

———-
There are many reasons why the addition of another group such as you suggest is not as valuable as you imagine.
——————-
Such as?
I’m not saying it’s perfect or the only way. Do you have a better suggestion to cancel out the possibility that the effect was caused by plain human contact?

——–
I find it wise to leave research to professional researchers, as it is a complex field with many variables, pun intended.
—————-
A Tad Elitist, no? There is nothing that complex about the scientific method or sound critical thinking.

And no you can never control all variables (or have a large or representative enough sample size; or fully account for confirmation bias or human error) but if what you are after is proof of Reiki’s mechanism of action specifically, I would think the most important control is somebody who simply places hands on the patients.

Good night…
And thank-you for keeping this a discussion…
If I’ve offended in any way – t’was NOT my attention.

Keep in mind that whereas there is no scientific validation for the existence of qi, which acupuncture purports to manipulate, there is an impressive, and growing, body of research that supports the effectiveness of acupuncture for a wide range of conditions.

As I see it, Reiki practice does not involve “transferring energy,” and I have detailed a more plausible model elsewhere.

There are no perfect research studies; there is always something that could have been different. There are many reasons why the addition of another group such as you suggest is not as valuable as you imagine. I find it wise to leave research to professional researchers, as it is a complex field with many variables, pun intended.

Thanks for the information, but I have no interest in the paranormal.

—–
yet we are able to measure the effect of Reiki practice on the human system. Research into Reiki is really just beginning, but already we have a number of studies that have demonstrated significant benefits from Reiki treatment, including the study I did at Yale that was written up in the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
—–
I must commend you, as you seem to stand apart from other practitioners in your attention to scientific method and controlling for bias and placebo.

That said, your study in NO WAY validates (or even suggests) that there is a transferring of ‘energy’. Furthermore, patient “mood” and “feeling” tests are highly subjective.

It could very well be that the patient’s did better simply due to human contact, something most people who’ve had the ‘pleasure’ of being admitting to a hospital will attest to. I can personally attest to this, I was hospitalized a bit ago for about a week. It was stressful, lonely, and depressing — by the end I was craving contact with anyone, beit a nurse (needle or not!) or the angry man in the next room…but this is purely anecdotal .

I do wonder what the results would have been if you had included a Group #4 – which would have hands placed on them by somebody NOT trained in Reiki. That would definitely go a long way to proving Reiki’s mechanism of action.

Reiki practice is not a relaxation technique; it is, as stated in the papers you’ve read, a spiritual healing practice. Relaxation is a by-product. The benefits of Reiki treatment that are beginning to be documented by research go beyond the benefits reported in stress reduction literature.

Every time I submitted accurate reporting of research on the Wikipedia, it was taken down soon after, and then I was blocked from posting. Hardly getting it right.

If you have access to research funding, please give me an introduction. Thank you.

I mean:
If all Reiki is a relaxation technique, and does NOT purport to affect an unproven (or even plausibly suggested) human energy field AND does not make bold unexplained claims (like ‘distance healing’) – then why not just say that?

You seem like honest people who don’t understand the power of placebo. Ignorance however, is no defence, especially when the subjects are the sick, the weak, the infirm.