The ADE guest editorial “Energy healing is now being scientifically validated” by Ms. Dionne-Dickson warrants a response. Ms. Dionne-Dickson believes that having an “energy healer” at a high school wellness fair is a "
reflection of the times we are now living in.” But it is also a reflection of the times that science literacy in the USA is plunging. Two-thirds of Americans do not have a firm grasp of what is meant by the scientific method. I am pleased to hear that “
everyone who lay on the table that day was eager to understand what they were witnessing.” My concern is that the wellness class students were not asking questions that help a consumer decide whether the foundation of a particular health practice or technique is based on science or pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow and adhere to the scientific method. How does a person distinguish science from pseudoscience?
Practitioners of pseudoscience commonly accuse scientists of being hostile. It seems the questions put forth in my letter to the editor, although valid, were full of negative energy and perceived as hostile. However, my concerns were about educating students about science, the scientific method, critical thinking and use of reason.
Another way to distinguish pseudoscience from science is the attempt to shift the burden of proof away from themselves. Note the quote offered from Dr. Dossey’s book: “
A body of knowledge that does not fit with prevailing ideas can be ignored as if it does not exist…” Dr. Dossey’s so-called “
body of knowledge” is being ignored because there is no scientific evidence to support it. The statement that “science cannot explain" is a common defense in pseudoscience. Pseudoscientists claim their beliefs are based in science yet beyond “ordinary” science. Often their claims are beyond the natural, what many refer to as the supernatural.
The “
vast body of knowledge, scientifically based, that is now available verifying the validity of the energetic body and the many forms of what is now being called Energy Medicine” doesn’t exist. Here is what the National Institutes of Health Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine has to say about therapeutic touch, a form of energy medicine. “However, there has been little rigorous scientific research. Overall, these therapies have impressive anecdotal evidence, but none have been proven scientifically to be effective.” If that statement is not enough, I suggest you read “A close look at therapeutic touch” by Rosa L., Rosa E., Sarner L. and Barrett S. published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1998) Apr 1; 279(13):1005-1010. Most practitioners of therapeutic touch are likely familiar with this article since it is a simple experiment that concludes, “Twenty-one experienced TT practitioners were unable to detect the investigator's "energy field."
Ms. Dionne-Dickson points out that she was trained at The Institute of Healing Arts & Sciences LLC. The IHAS is not
accredited by the Connecticut State Department of Education. A visit to the IHAS Website and a listen to their introductory video explains that the Connecticut Commissioner of Higher Education
approves the Institute. The New England Association of Schools and Colleges, an independent accrediting organization, does not list IHAS as an accredited school. If you spend some time looking through the IHAS catalog you will see that they teach “distance healing techniques” (pg. 16). As a parasitologist I found it interesting that the same module teaches techniques to eliminate intestinal parasites. There are 3 billion people in the World infected with intestinal parasites. It seems logical that far fewer people would have intestinal worms if they could be eliminated via distance healing techniques.
It is a problem that the many professional practitioners of complementary medicine in our area are concerned about “
the judgement they can run into.” That is probably a cost of doing business in the energy medicine field. But this is not about judgments. It is about discerning science from pseudoscience. It is about teaching our students how to make intelligent decisions about their health care based on scientific evidence, critical thinking and reason, not faith. It is about insuring that the public knows that the basis of the health treatments they are receiving have been deemed scientifically safe, sound and effective.
Ms. Dionne-Dickson attempts to explain the “science” behind Chakra reading. The fact that “
using a crystal as a pendulum, to hook into the spinning rotation of each energy center to give a visual representation of the activity of the energy center” may be interesting. But please explain what that statement actually means and provide the peer reviewed, scientific evidence on which your claims are based. Pseudoscientists commonly invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. It is generous of Ms. Dionne-Dickson to offer a free half-hour private session. But your Website indicates that you also do “distance”. Is it really necessary for a client to be physically present for a treatment?
I do not question that Ms. Dionne-Dickson is sincere in her beliefs and her intentions to bring health and healing to people in a professional and ethical manner. However, the legitimacy of the means in which she is doing it should be questioned. Moreover, unlike in pseudoscience, beliefs are not in the realm of science. Scientists do not believe scientific evidence; they accept or reject evidence obtained from experiments done in a controlled, repeatable manner.
Lastly, we need to ask where is the State of New York in regulating the practice of “energy medicine” especially Reiki or Therapeutic Touch? Massage therapists need to be educated and licensed under the auspices of the NY State Department of Education. Why not practitioners of touch healing? Florida, Utah and North Dakota all require practitioners of Reiki to be licensed massage therapists.
