Talk:Reiki/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Lübeck, Petter, and Rand

Considering the number of citations to this 2001 item, it seems like it might be helpful to actually include it in the bibliography. 108.69.74.140 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Research, Critical Evaluation and Controversy

The subsection "Basis and Effectiveness" currently presents an inaccurate portrayal of the scientific conclusions it is citing, and the user who twice reverted my editing attempts to address this has also made additional, broader, changes to the "Research, critical evaluation and controversy" section which impose a one-sided view of reiki rather than presenting a NPOV.

User Alexbrn asserts that the statement "The proposed mechanism for reiki – qi or "life force" energy – does not exist. Reiki is not helpful for treating any condition," is a neutral point of view, but the user's view is not supported in the citations. Examples of what the cited articles actually state include: "In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven," and "Biofield therapies are intended to affect energy fields that purportedly surround and penetrate the human body. The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven."

In addition to Alexbrn's misattributed statement, the user's deletion of the "Scientific Research" section (last included on April 12) removed a more critical evaluation of reiki research, and created a false impression of more widespread consensus on reiki as a pseudo-science. This goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy:

"The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." (see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV?).

To address this, I suggest including a direct concluding statement from the cited articles and additionally restoring the "Scientific Research" section from April 12. 24.158.62.166 (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are aware that WP:FRINGE applies here, and WP:MEDRS to any health-related claims? --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reiki is useless bollocks. That's what RS says in essence & it's perfectly obvious & uncontested by any serious authority. If Wikipedia implied anything else it would not be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, could you provide the source you're using to characterize reiki as a fringe science? I've searched for evidence to support this, but was only able to find such claims in blog posts and on wikipedia. The fringe theory page you directed me to says that "fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support," yet even in the past year peer-reviewed journals have been publishing articles citing health benefits attributed to reiki (those being largely mental health benefits since, I'm assuming, the effect is probably a self-induced calm as in yoga).

Even allowing for reiki to be a fringe theory, the wikipedia guidelines still seem to support my argument that Alexbrn's edits are not neutral and have no place in this reiki article:

"Pseudoscience: Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) may be treated as pseudoscience. Proposals which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, such as astrology, may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point."

Here, reiki does not fall under the pseudoscience category because it is not universally accepted as impossible. The cited example of perpetual motion violates the laws of thermodynamics; reiki does not violate scientific principles, it is merely debated. And, unlike astrology, debate on the merits of reiki exists in the scientific community. Reiki could however fall under the category of questionable science-- there is a reasonable amount of academic debate, and so reiki cannot be unambiguously characterized as pseudoscientific. To address Alexbrn's concerns, he could create a new section documenting sources that characterize reiki as pseudoscience.

The main concern in the provided link from Ronz on reliable sources for medicine seems to be that only reputable sources are used. Below is a small sampling of recent research from peer-reviewed journals concluding that the mental health benefits of reiki are significant (and therefore also indicating that, although others may not want to believe it, there is in fact academic debate on reiki):

http://ajh.sagepub.com/content/30/2/216.short http://ict.sagepub.com/content/13/1/62.short http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24582620/reload=0;jsessionid=aandhJL62HbEh9rRlu3P.20 http://journals.lww.com/dccnjournal/Abstract/2014/01000/Development_of_a_Hospital_Reiki_Training_Program_.5.aspx

Even with a continued debate on the effectiveness of reiki, I don't think there can be any debate that a suitably significant and scientific debate exists. Therefore, wikipedia's guidelines call for such a debate to be acknowledged. Alexbrn's edits attempt to eliminate evidence of this debate and impose his own biases on the article.

Furthermore, and most importantly, I think it's a terrible precedent to allow users to misrepresent the conclusions of their citations. As I've said, the cited sources do not say that qi does not exist or that reiki is not a helpful treatment; they say that no substantial evidence exists to prove reiki is effective. As I've implied, I doubt reiki is anymore effective than yoga. While I have no real interest in reiki either way, I stumbled on this article and the curt tone of Alexbrn's section "Basis and Effectiveness" easily stood out. It is not a well-written section; it's only one sentence and could be combined with other sections, as it was on April 12. Additionally, the potential for bias in the statement "The proposed mechanism for reiki – qi or "life force" energy – does not exist. Reiki is not helpful for treating any condition" caught my attention. Upon checking the citations, I realized that Alexbrn was misrepresenting his sources and was irked enough to try to edit the section.24.158.62.166 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No serious person/source debates this point - your tagging is tendentious. Our sources are well represented. Neither reiki's effects nor its basis have any scientific proof: we represent this neutrally by saying they don't exist. It's obvious. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the point that there are neither serious persons nor sources debating this point, and do not think that you took the time to look at the links I provided, so I will break it down for you:

http://ajh.sagepub.com/content/30/2/216.short Published in The American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes papers in the field of health care. Researcher affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA |Department of Integrated Medicine, West Penn Allegheny Health System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA | Volunteer Services, West Penn Allegheny Health System, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

http://ict.sagepub.com/content/13/1/62.short Published in Integrative Cancer Therapies, a peer-reviewed quarterly journal focused on the scientific understanding of alternative medicine and traditional medicine therapies. Researcher affiliations: all 6, University of Pennsylvania

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24582620/reload=0;jsessionid=aandhJL62HbEh9rRlu3P.20 Published in the Official Journal of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing, a peer-reviewed journal offering a unique focus on the realm of pain management as it applies to nursing. Researcher affiliations: University of Pittsburgh

http://journals.lww.com/dccnjournal/Abstract/2014/01000/Development_of_a_Hospital_Reiki_Training_Program_.5.aspx Published in Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, a peer reviewed journal on the four major dimensions of critical care nursing - clinical, leadership, research, and education - to advance the clinical practice of health care providers in critical care settings. Researcher affiliations: don't feel like looking it up, I feel my point is made.

You do a great disservice to the peer-review process, these academic journals, and institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh, and countless medical institutions by suggesting that these are not serious, credible sources. My dispute stands, and I will be reinstating the NPOV dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.72.9 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Weak sources and/or fringe publications - nothing here that's remotely RS to challenge the scientific and medical consensus. And now you're edit warring your tag back in. Please read WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear those studies are not research science. If that's the case, don't you think you ought to go to the wikipedia pages for those journals and make the appropriate edits to let others know that such journals are not true academic sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.72.9 (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Reiki is fringe. If there's some confusion with that, take some time to review alternative medicine and qi.

Thrane (2014) is interesting. The proper noticeboard for evaluating a source for MEDRS reliability is WP:RSN. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not reiki is fringe, this article is biased and does not represent its sources. Two arguments support this based on 1) what science does and does not do and 2) the problem area in this article is flat-out wrong about what its sources report, and therefore needs further citation

Argument 1: What science does and does not do // how to properly report on a fringe theory

Here is an example, from the astrology article, of a well-written rejection of a fringe science: "Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe and is considered a pseudoscience. Scientific testing of astrology has been conducted, and no evidence has been found to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions.There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics. Those who continue to have faith in astrology have been characterized as doing so "in spite of the fact that there is no verified scientific basis for their beliefs, and indeed that there is strong evidence to the contrary". "

This is in accordance with the guidelines of wikipedia because it accurately reports what science has found (ie. no evidence to support that astrology exists) rather than misstating what science has found (ie. if they had instead said "Astrology has no explanatory power and the proposed mechanism for astrology does not exist.") The misstatement of the second example here is inaccurate because it does not reflect how science works. Science does not prove anything, it provides evidence to support a conclusion. Simply because an editor has strong feelings on reiki does not give them liberty to misrepresent the scientific process by claiming to have captured "the essence" of the studies.

Even in articles on alternative medicine techniques I've never even heard of, the reporting is more tactful and accurate. Consider magnet therapy, where the article reads: "Practitioners claim that subjecting certain parts of the body to magnetostatic fields produced by permanent magnets has beneficial health effects. These physical and biological claims are unproven and no effects on health or healing have been established." Again, note that while it remains clear that this practice is unlikely to have real benefits, the writers still state what science actually says (unproven; no established effects) and not what they personally believe.

Argument 2: Inaccurate citations

I have already pointed out that none of the citations actually say that qi does not exist or that reiki is not helpful for treating any condition. Again, this is not because such claims are untrue, but because that's beyond the realm of what science can prove, and to say otherwise is to impose personal bias on the scientific process-- which is fine for your personal life, but not fine for wikipedia.

The citation of cancerresearchuk.org is particularly inappropriate. After summarizing studies that reiki did lower stress/promoted relaxation, and other studies showing that reiki was ineffective, the section concludes "We need to do large randomised clinical trials before we really know how much Reiki can help people with cancer." I can't comprehend how anyone could look at these cited pages and believe that they have not been misrepresented in this wikipedia article. None of the cited articles say reiki is ineffective. They don't even say the subject isn't worth studying. What (most) of them say is that there is no evidence to support those claims, which still gets across the point that reiki has not been effective, but does so in a way that is scientifically accurate. In the case of the cancerresearchuk.org page, it doesn't even say there's no evidence to support those claims; it literally has examples of evidence on the page, and debates the merits of the studies. This page especially has been grossly misrepresented.24.158.62.166 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it may well be worth taking Thrane (2014) to WP:RSN.

As for the rest, you might want to summarize your concerns at WP:FTN to get others' viewpoints.

As for the WP:ASSERT concerns, WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN would be appropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ronz, you've been really helpful with learning more about how to edit the articles here (plus it's been interesting to see how wikipedia works and all the political/religious/etc. disputes folks had on the resolution boards!). Since I'm getting pressed for time with other things I figured I ought to say that I'm not going to respond again. I put "not in citation given" tags on the sentences I was disputing and, from my experience writing government reports and as a journalist, I know it would never fly with my editors to state something that my source didn't actually say-- researchers are very particular with their word choice by intention, and I think it's important to respect that. Plus, after looking at how other alternative med pages are written on wikipedia, this article stands alone among those I read in asserting opinion over fact while interpreting scientific studies. But I'm sure the tags will be removed anyway.

I don't really know much about reiki-- I looked it up after reading this unusual article on National Geographic. The picture of the horse energy field demo is amusing, but it seems unlikely that the horse thought much of it. I don't care though- my gripe is that those two sentences I tagged easily stand out as biased because, having written research reports as well as having interviewed other researchers on various topics, I know that a study universally concluding that reiki is ineffective would not exist. There's a commitment to saying what is known, based on evidence, and allowing the results to speak for themselves. Science aims to be neutral, but humans-- and this article-- do not. 24.158.62.166 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, Wikipedia doesn't work well when it comes to topics like this, even with the additional guidance of WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS.

From a cursory look, I think you bring up good points with the citation needed tags. If nothing else, maybe we can get more eyes on this article.

Can we focus on Reiki#Basis_and_effectiveness? Do the sources support the information or not? --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of interest here is a recent thread at WT:MED (see here). If strong sources state that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of some therapy (not contradicted by serious countering sources), then the only neutral presentation of that is to assert that the therapy does not work. I would add this should be particularly so for implausible fringe things like Reiki, as we need to avoid giving the unwarranted impression that it is only a shortcoming of research that has not (yet) found its effect. The context of evidence-based-medicine is that something is considered not to work unless shown otherwise: that context needs to be "translated" into lay English for effective writing for our (lay) audience. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. (I hope the ip will continue in this discusion.) Does the article have enough context to show why this applies? --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Reference content question

Hello. What is the content of reference [3]: "Reiki flows through hands: (McKenzie (1998). Page 18); (Ellyard (2004). Page 27); (Boräng (1997). Page 9); (Veltheim and Veltheim (1995). Page 33)"?

I couldn't find if it is a book or something else. All google search results point to references to this content, not information about the content.

Could someone clarify this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCD0:100:C21:0:0:4E05:A9B7 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The individual texts are listed in the Bibliography section. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A healing value of reiki is implied throughout the article

I must draw attention to the examples peppered throughout the article where people with illnesses have been "treated" with reiki. Each of the examples mention nothing about whether the patient had been cured or even helped by the reike treatment. In my opinion it implies that reiki is a legitimate treatment for the illnesses mentioned when the article clearly states in the first section that "Used as a medical treatment, reiki confers no benefit".

One example:

"Usui used specific hand positions to treat specific ailments and dis-eases (discomfort),[102] which included disorders of the nervous system (such as hysteria),[103] respiratory disorders (such as inflammation of the trachea),[104] digestive disorders (such as gastric ulcers),[105] circulatory disorders (such as chronic high blood pressure),[106] metabolism and blood disorders (such as anaemia),[107] urogenital tract disorders (such as nephritis),[108] skin disorders (such as inflammation of the lymph nodes),[109] childhood disorders (such as measles),[110] women’s health disorders (such as morning sickness),[111] and contagious disorders (such as typhoid fever).[112]"

I strongly object to the use of the word "treat" here. Was the reiki treatment of typhoid fever successful or have any effect at all? This is just one example of many in the article, I would appreciate the thoughts of others on the matter JimmyFiveShoes (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

An ineffective, irrational treatment is still a treatment: "the manner in which someone behaves toward or deals with someone or something." - SummerPhD (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Qi does not exist

I was enlightened to discover in this article that qi, a completely metaphysical concept, has been proven not to exist! Perhaps whoever added this revolutionary discovery to the article also knows of a reliable source which has discerned that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, by the same method of disproving the validity of metaphysical concepts! If so would he please add that "fact" to the articles of Christianity, Islam, etc. and help end a lot of senseless wars!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.37.8 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The viewpoint that it doesn't exist gets priority here, and an overwhelming priority given that medical claims are involved. Do review WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV if you're interested in working on this article on such topics. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Article contradicts its own sources...?

Wikipedia: "Used as a medical treatment, reiki confers no benefit". Well that sounds like a bold claim. Especially since, according to the source referenced by that very same sentence, "the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven."

Could it be that there is some confusion regarding whether "remains unproven" equals "has been proven false/nonexistent"? The mind, it boggles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.196.91 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the wikipedia statement is a summary of the reference. Scientific language can be confusing; by saying there is no evidence that something works, in lay terms, they are saying that it doesn't work. Reading about the philosophical concept of burden of proof will give you an idea of why scientists like to use this precise kind of language. 03:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.24.65 (talk)

Agreed. "Reiki confers no benefit" is fine as a summary. It's inappropriate to let the science be misrepresented.

WP:FRINGE most definitely applies. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, "Reiki confers no benefit" distorts the meaning of the cited source, a meta-analysis of studies which compared Reiki treatment to sham control or to conventional care. The conclusion was that based on the particular studies analysed, that "evidence is insufficient" to show that it is more effective than sham and that the treatment "remains unproven", which means something very different from "Reiki confers no benefit". Language matters. Those words change the meaning of the conclusion. Absence of supportive evidence is not tantamount to disproof. Furthermore, if it is the case that Reiki is not more effective than placebo or sham control, it does not mean that it is not effective at all. It should not be said that it is not effective outright when what is meant is that particular studies have concluded that it is not more effective than a placebo treatment. Thus I have changed "Reiki confers no benefit" to "Reiki has not been proven to be more effective than placebo". And similarly, I have changed "Reiki is not helpful for treating any medical condition" to "Reiki has not been proven to be more effective than placebo for treating any medical condition." This language more accurately reflects the source material, and more closely conforms to a neutral point of view.

Also, you and SummerPHD reverted 11 of my edits with only vague reasoning. Having been a contributor here for nearly a decade, I am familiar with WP:FRINGE; you should be more specific with your objections. Please do not wholesale revert my edits. It is not constructive. My aim here is to keep NPOV and to accurately reflect the cited source material. Dforest (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you one time, asking that you discuss a major change to the tone of the article. So far, that's you being bold, me reverting. (Given the number of drive-by edits changing various pieces they don't like, this is necessary. Editing to change a stable consensus will require discussion.) At this point, discussion would have been a good next step. You merely restored your edits. Another editor -- part of the consensus -- reverted you and commented on the talk page. At this point, discussion would have been a good next step. You came back today, restored your edit and now you are discussing it. In a bit under "nearly a decade", I've run across WP:BRD frequently. I have never seen WP:BRRRRRRD. I'm inclined to undo your edit again until the discussion progresses, but I don't suspect that would really accomplish anything. Let's see where the discussion goes over the next few days. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted. Glad we're discussing the matter now.

I don't think the differences are very great at this point. The pseudoscience bit in the first sentence doesn't belong there, but could fit with the last sentence of that first paragraph instead, perhaps with a bit more context.

I think the main issue with the rest is where we summarize vs where we go into more detail. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Unclear cites

Numerous cites in this article are needlessly vague. For example, cite 1: Lübeck, Petter, and Rand (2001). Chapter 14, pages 108 to 110; Ellyard (2004). Page 79; McKenzie (1998). Pages 19, 42, and 52; Lübeck (1996). Page 22; Boräng (1997). Page 57; Veltheim and Veltheim (1995)Page 72: The "Bibliography" section does not include a cite for Lübeck, Petter, and Rand (2001), Lübeck (1996) or Boräng (1997). McKenzie (1998) might refer to McKenzie, Eleanor; et al. (1998). Additionally, the citation style is rather confusing.

Each author date combination must refer to a work listed in the "Bibliography" section. Best practice would be for the reference to link to the work in the bibliography. For clarity, each work should be cited separately.

While working on this, I will not be making any changes to content. I will mark any refs I cannot clarify. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made the first clarification. I await any comments before continuing. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the first use of the "Lübeck, Petter, and Rand (2001)" source to a more detailed cite. I don't know that it's a usable source, but that is a separate issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello! Greetings to everyone:) Ok, just a few thoughts, please take them as good natured. I just want to present my opinion. This article is nicely written and informative, its really well done, but honestly to me it seems to not be completely neutral in POV...for instance in the first paragraph it makes the comment "reiki has not been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for any recognized medical condition". Now I completely understand people not believing in Reiki or dismissing it as pseudoscience. I totally get it and I realize that there is just not enough scientific evidence. But some of the comments just seem disparaging and the overall tone is one of treating reiki like its absolute quackery. Which has also not been proven. The article fails to mention or list all the hospitals that now use Reiki as treatments for during and post surgery healing, and also in cancer patients, etc. Why would they do this if there was no medical evidence of Reiki doing anything at all? It makes no sense that hospitals would be training the nurses in Reiki. http://www.reikiforallcreatures.com/about-reiki-hospitals.aspx I want to quote a nurse practitioner, who says

"Every cell of the human body produces electricity, and, as such, is complemented by a magnetic field which is small but measurable. The hands of reiki practitioners produce more powerful EM fields than those without attunement, and the fields may actually be measured by simple 80k turn electromagnets. The frequency of the fields is measured to be in a range that many medical devices (ultrasounds, TENS, etc.) use to treat a variety of conditions. No carefully controlled studies have been performed to test the actual reiki process, but several studies of average composition have shown it to be beneficial in the treatment of conditions. So does it exist? Maybe. The evidence is starting to show promise, but that could all turn around in a year's time.

Remember that man knows just about nothing about anything on the universal scale. "

Every Reiki practitioner I know has at least one 'miracle' story where someone experiences an incredible healing of a medical condition. I admit that I am biased in the other direction, and Im not saying the article should be like that, I just feel it could be more neutral and not so disparaging in the first paragraph. Its obvious that the writer doesnt believe Reiki works or even exists. Thats ok, the writer is entitled to the opinion. But what about the millions of people that believe that it does? This opinion needs to be represented toO. The only time the article mentions reiki in a positive light is when referring to other sources and saying things like 'reiki is believed to help'. This is different from the general tone of the article which is very biased towards disbelief in something which yes, some people see as pseudoscience, but some people have had tremendous experiences and benefits from which should not be disregarded. And as far as scientific evidence that it exists, 'http://www.kokoro.uk.com/reiki/reiki-some-scientific-evidence/' is something at least, Anyway, I dont want to argue at all, I just think this article should be a tiny tiny bit more balanced. Thanks so much, hope everyone is having a great week :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivalibrooks (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Yes it is very sad indeed that institutions that otherwise practice evidence based medicine drop their principles completely when it comes to the easy money made from meeting marketing "alternatives". --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident "Reiki for All Creatures" is unreliable, but otherwise I share Shivalibrooks's neutrality concerns. The reliable sources I've seen indicate that the efficacy of reiki is unproven. That is a far cry from stating without qualification that reiki conveys no medical benefits or that reiki is pseudoscience. This is not just a neutrality issue; it's a verification issue as well. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalization

The article uses a mix of "reiki" and "Reiki". I was about to fix this seemingly trivial matter, but then noticed that Merriam-Webster has "Reiki" while OED has "reiki". Manul ~ talk 01:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo-Japanese Isyu Guo

Having flogged the dead horse about whether Reiki is pseudoscience, another question arises. The present article, like many sources, repeats the story about Mikiao Usui "performing Isyu Guo [sic], a twenty-one day Buddhist training course held on Mount Kurama". While "isyu" is old Nihon-shiki romanization or Kunrei-shiki romanization for WP-style Hepburn romanization isshu (e.g., 一種 "a kind; a species") or perhaps isshū (e.g., 一宗 "a sect; a denomination"); "guo" is not a Japanese word—but is a common Chinese Pinyin romanization (see guo and Guo). Neither the jp nor the zh interwiki mentions this alleged Buddhistic name. They respectively say "に鞍馬山にこもり21日間の絶食を行い", meaning "while performing a 21-day fast on Mount Kurama", and "在日本的聖山─鞍馬山，並斷食靜坐21天", "while performing a 21-day fast and jìngzuò [Japanese seiza] "quiet sitting" meditation on Japan's sacred mountain Mount Kurayama". Searching the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism does not find isyu but does find many Chinese guo words and one Chinese gòuwū, Korean guo, or Japanese kuo term 垢汚 "stain; defilement". What are the origins of this Japanesey *isyu guo error? Keahapana (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This is well outside of my wheelhouse, so I'll only touch on it. In similar disputes, we tend to go with what reliable sources discussing the article's topic have to say. If they discuss it, we discuss it. If they don't, we don't. Many of the sources in this article seem to be of rather low quality. Do any of the sources cover any portion of this? Are those sources reliable? - SummerPhD (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. When dealing with any sort of discipline that revolves around magical thinking, I find it becomes impossible to really bring any sort of Original research-based logic, or any other sort of mainstream academic discipline (lingustics, for instance) logic into it. It's much better and easier to deal with what WP:RSes say about it.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

NCCIH

Is this a reliable source?

• Source: "Reiki: What You Need To Know". National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. September 2014.
• Source language: "Several groups of experts have evaluated the evidence on Reiki, and all of them have concluded that it’s uncertain whether Reiki is helpful."

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:FRIND problems. Better to use mainstream sources independent of the fringe altmed world. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So, reliable or unreliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This source is already used in the article (NCCIH went under a the name National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine previously); we should update the reference. NCCIH is an acceptable source as a governmental medical source, though I would in text attribute any conclusions they come to (as is already done in this article). Yobol (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why in-text attribute? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

NCCIH/NCCAM has been criticized; as such, I would avoid using it as a sole source for a conclusion in Wikipedia's voice. Yobol (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Agree. That was premature. I'll have to think about it. Every federal agency has been criticized by someone. Maybe it depends on the nature and source of the criticism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The criticism of this "National Center" (it is not a federal agency) comes from a research mandate which precludes studies that would likely cast doubt on efficacy of alternative medicine. Any statement which was included which tended to comment on the efficacy of an alternative medicine treatment sourced to this center's promotion or research funding should therefore be properly contextualized. This is unlike, for example, NIH which funds studies on the basis of scientific merit (not in NCCIH's remit). jps (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You must be confusing NCCIH with a different organization. NCCIH is a division of NIH (like the CDC) and both our article and its own website describe it as a federal agency. Its mission is to "to define, through rigorous scientific investigation, the usefulness and safety of complementary and integrative health interventions and their roles in improving health and health care." How this translates into a "mandate which precludes studies that would likely cast doubt on efficacy of alternative medicine" is beyond me. Provide sources if you're going to make an extraordinary claim like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Federal agency" is actually a poorly defined subject, but to the extent that NCCIH has zero regulatory power, I find it to be lacking in most definitional senses. It's not even close to being equivalent to the CDC, for example, in terms of executive authority. The problem with the NCCIH's mandate is that NCCIH cannot fund properly controlled studies because of its primary focus on "alternative" medicine. For example, if you designed a study that would look into the health benefits of relaxation independent of alternative health modalities (say, you wanted to measure the effect of those who engage in a hobby), NCCIH would not fund the study even if it included relaxation techniques that were a part of alternative medicine like, say, meditation. This is by design: the concern by the quack-supporters in Congress who set up this travesty was to provide a place where the real medicine and scientific investigation wouldn't overrun the parochial investigations that shunned true inquiry. There was an entire exposé of this nonsense here: [1]. jps (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You lose all credibility when you insist that NCCIH isn't a federal agency. Black is white, white is black. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I thought jps's response was quite thoughtful and nuanced. I think he hit the nail on the head. It's a federal agency in the same way that the Selective Service System is. It has no power anymore, but it sounds fancy. ALSO, the CDC actually ISN'T a part of the NIH. It's a separate federal agency under DHHS. Also, if NCCIH doesn't conduct RCTs, then its studies don't meet MEDRS, right?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 08:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to say that Wikipedia is at all credible, but it seems to suffer from the same lack of black-and-white-i-tude that you complain about. List of federal agencies in the United States. jps (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to Bridge the Gap

Hi All, I am a latecomer to this conversation, but I am a researcher/teach research. I can see that there has been a lot of debate - my sense is that wording and phrasing has set people off. In most cases, if we can speak to the point (e.g. what do reviews actually say?) rather than interpret or put our spin on them, I think fewer people will be offended (in both directions). I am willing to make an effort to bridge the gap between the two camps (as well as I can) while also making an effort to address this in an unbiased way. This is done with best intentions - I hope in earnest this is helpful and settles things down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winspiff (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

*thumbs up* --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Although, just to be clear, I think SummerPhD and I are both biomed researchers, from what I've gathered. I think there exist some who would call the word "research" as you use it here, a biased concept. I don't agree, but that viewpoint does exist.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific aspects of Eastern religions in general

For whatever it might be worth, the argument regarding whether this is or is not pseudosceince seems to at least my eyes be a question regarding how to describe Chinese "religion" and Traditional Chinese medicine in particular by current Western terminology. It is worth noting that Chinese culture does not generally have the "soul" that we tend to take for granted in Western religions, which raises questions regarding whether anything in it can really be called "spiritual," as there is not necessarily any sort of separate "spirit" involved. There is also, of course, the equally relevant question whether the word "religion," which is itself kind of a Western concept and term, is really appropriate either.

If we had a specific article or section, and I tend to think that we do, somewhere, although I don't know exactly where, which specifically discusses the Oriental mind/spirit/soul relationship, it would probably at least to my eyes to link to it as a descriptor in the first sentence of the lede, perhaps with language like "Chinese religious" practice or something like that. Pretty much by definition, all the physical or "medical" claims of such Chinese or Oriental belief systems are, I think, considered pseudoscientific, so the issue of possible redundancy in the use of the word "pseudoscience" together with a more specific descriptor early in the lede might, unfortunately, remain.

I know of one editor who has given a great deal of time to the study of qigong related topics around here, and have contacted him for his input on how to address this matter. John Carter (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Lee literature review

This literature review by Lee et al. does not say that reiki conveys no medical benefit, as stated in our lead section. Instead it says the existing evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki conveys any medical benefit. That is quite a different thing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"The evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition" is STM-speak for "it doesn't work", which we state in lay language to be neutral. I shall request further input from WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "STM" stands for, but this analysis seems to be original research. You're taking what the source actually says and reinterpreting it to say when you think they actually meant. That's would definitely violate WP:V. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

STM = Science, Technology, Medicine. We need to paraphrase in lay language. On reflection this could be done better by putting it is "ineffective" (since a benefit maybe conferred by the placebo effect), so I've done that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a proper paraphrase. That has a very different meaning. A better lay paraphrase would be something like "studies to date have not shown any medical benefit." Or better, more directly quoted and easily understandable: "the medical value of reiki remains unproven." I've posted a discussion at WP:NORN as I think that's a better place to get input on the relevant policies (WP:V and WP:OR). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking at WT:MED as the question revolves on what medical content means in lay terms. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The summary of the article is quite clear and easily understandable by non-experts. WP:JARGON is no basis for reinterpreting a source to mean something different, and any editor here (not just those at WP:MED) is qualified to opine on whether given language is too technical. In fact a technical wikiproject would be the last place I'd go for that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is well known and understood that "existing evidence is insufficient to suggest that ... conveys any medical benefit" is scientific journal jargon fairly interpreted into lay terms as "inneffective". Scientific writing bears in mind the logic that a negative cannot be "proven" lay writing summarizes "insufficient to suggest...conveys any medical benefit" into clear lay terms as "not effective". Of particular note is that the evidence does not even "suggest" any benefit. Editors at WP:MED actually have substantial experience and understanding of the difference between the way scientific journal articles and lay articles differ and the delineation between accurate paraphrasing and summarization and OR and thus would be a logical and reasonable place to seek input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Shibbolethink just removed[2] some text that said reiki "might help promote a feeling of general wellbeing" with the comment it's not supported by the ref. But this wording was my attempt to paraphrase the ref's words: "many healthcare professionals accept Reiki as a useful complementary therapy that may help to lower stress, promote relaxation and possibly help reduce some types of pain". I think we need to represent sources fairly and have something of this kind. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable paraphrase of those words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. That source also says that "Practitioners of Reiki believe that it promotes a sense of wellbeing." So the best way to include that phrase is that practitioners believe it. In my opinion, the way you phrased it made it sound as though research hasn't shown that Reiki cures anything, but that research HAS shown that Reiki promotes a sense of wellbeing. There's no /studies/ to support that, just the concept that some healthcare professionals believe it. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Good points. So: "some physicians think it might help promote general wellbeing"? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me! Though probably, "though some physicians have said it could promote general wellbeing" for style or whatever.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fringe

Can someone please explain, to this editor with relatively little experience with WP:FRINGE, how the claim that reiki may confer some medical benefit is a fringe theory per our standards as opposed to merely a questionable theory, see WP:FRINGE/PS? I respectfully request a thoughtful and reasoned answer rather than a "duh it's obvious" type of answer. Yes, we have a couple of non-peer reviewed sources by noted skeptics saying it's pseudoscience. These would be considered reliable if WP:PARITY applies, but to get there the theory would already have to pass the test as fringe, would it not? And for that, there would have to be a broad scientific consensus that reiki did not confer any medical benefit. I'm not seeing that in the literature. Reliable sources such as this one do not say reiki confers no medical benefit; they say the evidence to date is insufficient to suggest that reiki confers a medical benefit, which is something quite different. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously fringe, and so may be so labelled (magic energy jumps from your hands to the patient, curing disease?). It's also described as such by our sources (not just the ones you mentioned, we're using a mainstream textbook in the article). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What sources? The best I see is a single textbook that puts reiki on a list of pseudosciences. That doesn't seem like scientific consensus to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Does to me. Or are you saying there are good sources which consider the question of whether reiki is pseudoscience or not, and come down differently? If so which? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

No sources in direct conflict, though here's one saying reiki does have a detectable physiological effect. More importantly, is one textbook enough to establish scientific consensus? What is the basis for that? Scientific consensus says it's a collective judgment, not an solitary judgment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"No sources in direct conflict" ← end of disussion then. A consensus is charatercteized by the absence of significant opposition. (A "consensus" is a red herring here anyway. Reiki is obviously pseudoscience to any rational person AND we follow the sources). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the source you linked does little to prove it has any effect in comparison to placebo. There's a long long history of pseudosciences creating some sort of physiological effect, but just as much as placebo, because it's all about the belief that there's an effect. See Acupuncture#Effectiveness.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident that's not what consensus means in the scientific context. Suppose a scientist comes out with some groundbreaking research and draws a new conclusion from it. You're saying that's the new scientific consensus? Seems a little far fetched to me, and totally inconsistent with our article on the subject. And this "it's obvious" mantra isn't helpful. I'm hoping for reasoned discussion, not something akin to can't-you-see-the-truth aka blind faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

For something which is novel the consensus can't be known. On "obvious" allow me to quote WP:FRINGE: "Proposals which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification". Reiki is obviously bogus, or are there sane people who believe in channelling magic power through their hands, do you think? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman, when a reliable source states that something is pseudoscience, it is effectively telling us that sufficient conditions are met with regard to the demarcation problem. Are you seeking some kind of collective statement from scientists around the world that Reiki is pseudoscience? Scientific consensus is indicated by the lack of consideration; WP:FRINGELEVEL covers this a little. Thinking of a maximally obvious example like time cube may help. Manul ~ talk 08:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Manul, I appreciate this discussion. Time Cube does seem like a useful comparator. Assuming our article to be accurate, the Time Cube theory was held by a single individual rather than widespread. Reiki, in contrast, is a common practice adopted by more than 60 hospitals and tried by more than 1.2 million people in the U.S.[3]. A scientifically plausible mechanism has been identified and reiki has been proven to have a physiological effect (though no medical benefit has been proven).[4] This mechanism has been accepted by the scientific community in non-alt med contexts.[5] The NIH has addressed the effectiveness of reiki and has declined to call it ineffective, instead saying, "Several groups of experts have evaluated the evidence on Reiki, and all of them have concluded that it’s uncertain whether Reiki is helpful."[6] In spite of these huge differences compared Time Cube, our Time Cube article doesn't outright reject the theory, let alone in the first sentence as the reiki article does. Instead, it describes how specific scientists have rejected the theory, with attribution. If we did what is done in the Time Cube article then this article would be much more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrFleischman (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 March 2015‎

" held by a single individual rather than widespread" Fallacious and irrelevant at best. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please back that up. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not helpful. Explain. Collaborate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain what it is you don't understand. I'm saying that the main point of the argument presented is simply an ad pupulum fallacy. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You've misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying reiki is effective because many people believe it to be. I'm saying in order to declare a view held by millions of people as fringe we should have more evidence than for a view held by one person. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It appears I understood perfectly. Fallacious and irrelevant at best. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Try explaining why you feel that way, beyond invoking a straw man maxim. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're the one here trying to change consensus. Make a case that's not based upon fallacies and misunderstandings. --Ronz (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman, the reason I mentioned Time Cube was to illustrate that it would be unreasonable to expect some kind of "broad scientific consensus" from scientists about Time Cube except implicitly via its absence in the scientific literature. Manul ~ talk 18:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. The problems with this argument are multiple. First, it's not at all clear that Time Cube was treated as fringe. Second, even if it was treated as fringe, the coverage of fringe level was much more more extensive and balanced in Time Cube than here. I added the citations to show that compared Time Cube, reiki is much less obviously a fringe theory and much more extraordinarily labeled as such, given that it has reached a much greater level of acceptance as compared to Time Cube. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

While I'm going to continue to assume good faith of DrFleischman's recent comments and edits, they stray well into territory that might call for a warning for Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases violations.

That said, shouldn't this talk page have a notice about it falling under ArbCom findings and enforcement? --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, I consider this outright harassment. These arbitration cases say disruptive behavior is subject to discretionary sanctions. Unless you can point me to conduct that you consider disruptive then this is a purely empty threat. There is nothing disruptive about our discussions. If anything is disruptive, it is the constant edit warring that has occurred on this on this article since at least last fall, mostly by the skeptics with with the lamest of edit summaries, yourself included. Then as soon as someone comes to the talk page and makes a coherent argument you start talking about sanctions? Get real. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I'm happy to reword, but the facts are what they are. Multiple Arbcom decisions apply here and now you know. Note that there were decisions on behavior as well as identification of policies. I think your behavior is over the line, even in your reply above. You repeatedly dispute the application of identified policies, following in the footsteps of those previously warned, banned, and blocked. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Disputing the application of identified policies" is disruption? You have to be kidding me. These kinds of vacuous threats are intended to squelch reasoned discussion and are therefore disruptive themselves. If you report me on this basis I will definitely request a boomerang. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the arbcom decisions. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I have. Now I suggest you back off before I seek sanctions myself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Weren't you complaining about threats earlier? --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I am confused as to why there is a confusion. Per WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." There is no scientific support for its medical use, it is therefore by definition WP:FRINGE. WP:FRINGE treatments can be popular, but nevertheless not supported scientifically. Yobol (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is what the prevailing view is in this field. I don't think there is a prevailing view on this topic. We have a very small number of sources saying reiki is ineffective, and we have a very small number of sources saying the studies have been inconclusive. Due to the lack of useful studies and the relative lack of scientific opinions on the matter I do not think we can say the scientific community has spoken on the matter. Therefore FRINGE can't apply. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the scientific community has spoken, it has said there is no evidence it works to treat anything. Since we have a number of WP:MEDRS compliant sources that says it does not work or there is no evidence it works, and no high quality sources that says it does work or there is good evidence it does work, it has "little or no scientific support" and therefore qualifies as WP:FRINGE. Yobol (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You sure? A cursory Web of Science search yields the following: [1], [2], [3], [4]. These papers were published in SCI journals in 2014-2015, significantly more recent than the 2008 paper currently cited in the article. Can you provide the source(s) by which you claim that there is a consensus? Banedon (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite sure. Let's look at the sources you provide in detail:

1. 1: A primary study, published in a journal that is not even indexed in Pubmed, not to mention MEDLINE. Not usable per WP:MEDRS.
2. 2, #3, #4: No definitive conclusions could be reached due to the poor quality of underlying data, and each are published in relatively lower quality journals. #3 and #4 also included non-Reiki related modalities, making any conclusions you can draw about Reiki specifically dubious.

The sources used in the article (NCCIH, American Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK) are high quality tertiary sources that document that there is no good evidence it works. None of the sources you provide come close to disputing that. Yobol (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it works. I'm claiming there's no consensus. By what sources do you claim that there is a consensus? None of the sources you mention even use the word 'consensus'. Banedon (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Also just so that we don't end up talking past one another and arguing about things that aren't really relevant, I'll just say that based on articles such as the four I gave above, I oppose any mention that Reiki does not work, and prefer the weaker statement 'there is no evidence that Reiki works'. Banedon (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not getting into a semantic discussion here. The point of this discussion is that there has not been presented any good sources saying that there is good evidence it does work, and in fact, several sources saying there isn't any good evidence that it works. Therefore, there is "little or no scientific support" for it, and therefore, it falls under WP:FRINGE. Yobol (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Banedon (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

As a lot of content is disappearing (unreliable/primary sources), just a quick note for the record before some of the whoppers are gone. Yes, this is a WP:FRINGE theory. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with how many people "use" it in one way or another. Reiki practitioners make claims that are directly at odds with basic, established science: Reiki energy is infinite/unlimited. Reiki treatments can be made across any distance. Reiki treatments can be made across time (i.e., into the past or future). Reiki energy "knows" where it is needed. Reiki practitioners sometimes use other discredited theories/practices (e.g., psychic surgery). Whether or not Reiki is "mainstream" or anything else, it fits the criteria under WP:FRINGE. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)