Comments on: Reiki Research: Not Quite the Maddest thing on the Net.

By: Iain Brassington

Iain Brassington — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 19:29:23 +0000

Of course we should question Jesus healing, and Buddha healing, and penicillin, and radiotherapy, and splints for broken limbs. That way, we'll find out what works and what's crackpot nonsense. Of the list above, I'd be pretty certain that the first two belong to the crackpot nonsense group.

If there are any peer-reviewed reports of spiritualists providing healing, then they'd be taken seriously. But there aren't. And while it's true that some people might have an incentive to discredit things that harm their profit margins, that isn't enough to show that the discrediting is illegitimate. In the case of alternative (to) medicine, the vast bulk of the discrediting is perfectly scientifically sound.

By: Supriya

Supriya — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:54:32 +0000

Why all this ruckus about research on the efficacy of Reiki as a healing system? Reiki never says it's a cure by itself. All that it says it compliments and supplements standard medical treatment, whatever be the discipline, by making the patient more open and compatible to receiving treatment. If we question Reiki healing, them what about Jesus and Buddha healing? Why not question that too and find out if Satan was involved in them too? What about the spiritualists who have reported miraculous and medically verifiable healing? (www.brunogroening.org). Spread of alternative healing modalities creates a dent into the profit margins of drug companies and they will go all out to discredit such healing systems.