Jedi Healers

ren wrote: Maybe you missed that. I do not ask that the phenomenon be observed. I don't want to know how chi kills a virus. I want proof that it can by looking at the end result.

No I didn't miss it. You asked me to "Please explain", so I had to state a bit more about what I couldn't explain to set some boundaries for trying to answer your question more effectively. That doesn't mean I didn't understand your model of proof.

ren wrote: If people are still ill afterward, then the object of the experiment failed. It draws no conclusions over whether things exist outside our knowledge.

As mentioned, I wasn't proving it exists, merely your proof might not be foolproof.

ren wrote: Regarding the observer effect, if simply testing someone after reiki or shiatsu makes them ill again, then I suggest people simply stop going to the doctor's (or other health practitioner) to begin with. No diagnostic = no illness. Hurray!

Who can say how it works, but if it does work for some then it is worth considering.

Well these are all good points people are making here

I thank you all for this wonderfull debate!

I think this all boils down to some simple ideas:
- if something works for you, then great. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't mean that it might not work for someone else.
- all medical practitioners (of ANY system) are human. The methods might be quantifiable and rigorous but human beings aren't. Therefore any medicine is fallible.

An it harm none, do what ye will.

That's very Wiccan of you, Akkarin. hahaha. But, true!

"A well-frog cannot imagine the ocean, nor can a summer insect conceive of ice. How then can a scholar understand the Tao? He is restricted by his own learning." - Chuang-Tse as interpreted by Benjamin Hoff in The Tao of Pooh

Even Doctors with equivalent certifications and qualifications discuss this, that or the other method. Setting up rules is just giving ourselves something to topple, something time itself will do if we don't. The truth I've gleaned reading this thread can be found in the Living Force: accept the medicine of the times. Here, we can see many examples of acceptable medicine in our time. None are wrong.

rugadd

rugadd wrote: None are wrong.

that which causes harm is wrong, by the very nature of the hippocratic oath. followed by: that which is a less effective treatment than another is less effective (a tautology), and thus perhaps should not be the first and/or only one tried.

Like I said, there are some circumstances when it's not the medicine that may be at fault but the people practising it. Here's a sad example: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kane-gorny-inquest-nhs-patient-1125329

None are wrong.


"that which causes harm is wrong, by the very nature of the hippocratic oath. followed by: that which is a less effective treatment than another is less effective (a tautology), and thus perhaps should not be the first and/or only one tried."

My post specified this thread and the methods discussed here by stating "Here, we can see..." directly before "None are wrong". I didn't read any healing method here that caused harm in and of it self. If one applied "None are wrong" to the whole world and everything everyone does in regards to medicine, than yes you are correct. As far as what is more or less effective, I would say that doesn't make either wrong, just that one is more effective than the other. If your implying the most effective treatment is the best treatment, that is self evident to me, but that is all.

rugadd

There are serious issues with the way the NHS practices medicine. GPs don't make house calls, it's always a different one too... So weird. I always go back to my own country for treatment (meaning I rarely get any), even though I have to pay for it nowadays. Over there it's a crime (for anyone) to refuse water to someone I might add. (except for bars who can now charge for water)

edit: I wonder how the real doctors who cured this guy's cancer felt when they saw this in the the papers.