Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 6 Jan 2014 10:16:16 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
" I think the evidence is that conventional
medicine can learn a lot from the way confident,
caring practitioners outside the mainstream
relate to their clients, how these clients are
empowered and how they gain in confidence. We
have *tons* of good, biologically-plausible,
testable evidence of the immense value of touch
and human connection, emotional and physical.
I think it is vastly more likely that this is
what is 'working' - when it 'works' .
Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc, tutor, UK"
Okay. Is this statement testable? Can psychological impact be subjected to double blind studies? If so, how would you design a CST study that differentiates between any physical benefit and any psychological benefit?
For example, acupuncture has been tested by having some patients receiving real acupuncture and some receiving real acupuncture needles at fake points, and the real acupuncture has won.
I'm not against either side here (though I have to disclose that I've been to a CST practitioner myself), I'm encouraging a thought experiment.
Julie Tardos
~~~~
The only thing more addictive than illegal drugs is tax revenue.--John Paul Maxfield
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
|
|