Talk:Therapeutic touch

message: Therapeutic Touch is not in Healing Touch and should not be merged. They are two separate modalities. 
Healing Touch would have its own category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.104.249 (talk) 05:17, December 20, 2005 (UTC)
: They're just different franchises of the same hogwash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.224.208 (talk) 07:31, June 13, 2006 (UTC)
As I write this, Healing touch does not seem to have an article (it appears to have been subsequently deleted). That, together with the fact that the merger was proposed on Oct. 13 and no one has furthered it, I am going to remove the merger note.  --TeaDrinker 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By your logic Therpeutic Touch shouldn't even have its own page then. Since there is no hard scientific evidence to prove the concrete existence of either, why should they be merged or even have a page at all? -Bones  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.183.81 (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I came looking for information specific to Healing Touch and was annoyed to find them overlapping.  While it's nice that the pseudoskeptics find them to be the same, I was looking for actual information, you know, the stuff you expect to find in an encyclopedia.  (I don't even care that this page is not written from a remotely neutral standpoint, I just wanted to know what differentiated the two modalities, even in theory.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.122.102 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger with Healing Touch

message: The external links section is going out of hand
Kl4m 21:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The external links section is going out of hand 

message: Maybe calling these alternative therapies "meditation" would impart some credibility? When it gets to the point where my tax dollars will cover it, then maybe I'll open my eyes to it. Overall, I'll take a massage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.10.49 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps

message: left these comments in the article; they're inappropriate for article space, so thought they'd be useful here. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments left in article 

message: This edit removed reference to the 1975 Krieger study. As she founded the modality, this study would seem to be of importance to the article out of proportion to its quality. Would anyone object to its (properly weighted) inclusion as part of a historical overview? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't, though it might be better to put it in History, not scientific research. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krieger study 

message: I looked up Quantum Touch and was surprised to find in wholly collapsed into this page. This is gross simplification. I propose the Quantum Touch page be filled out on its own or deleted entirely as to remove the false correlation. They could belong to the same class (and I believe they do), but upon inspection they claim a separate history and use different methods. The scientific community can not begin an effective investigation by premature classification. --Sankofa416 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Separation From Quantum Touch 

message: Calling it something that sounds all clinical ("therapeutic") doesn't make it less ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's ridiculous. It's pure pseudoscientific nonsense, but per our inclusion criteria here it's notable enough to justify inclusion. You'll find lots of articles about nonsense here. If they are notable, they get included, and that's the way it should be. The mission of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge, including notable nonsense. As long as the article doesn't promote the nonsense we're okay. If it makes any biomedical statements, then we use WP:MEDRS sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Therapeutic touch" is it's actual name. It was once much talked about, taught and practiced by nurses, not just Cam healers. It met a rather sticky end in mainstream circles following Emily Rosa's efforts. Fainites barleyscribs 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't this merged with articles on faith healing, etcetera? 

message: I just did some more searches for trademarks on TT. Interesting results.
I found a number of abandoned trademarks, but two which are still active.
 - to "Nurse Healers - Professional AssociatesInternational, Inc", for "Association services, namely, promoting the interest of nurses and promoting public awareness of the need for standards and credentials to practice the art of alternative medicine"
and 
 - to "Bon Vital Incorporated" for "Body oils, skin cream, skin lotion, face cream and face lotion".
I don't see that either of these are worth mentioning in the article and certainly don't support the proposition that TT should be capitalised (except in its acronym form!) since the actual practice of TT is not covered by a trademark. GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark 

message: Pen and Teller have thoroughly covered Therapeutic Touch, including showing video of Dolores Krieger making her unsubstantiated claims, interviewing Emily Rosa and Stephen Barrett, MD of Quackwatch, and showing video of Emily Rosa's experiment that she performed when she was 9 years old, which proved that Therapeutic Touch was Bullshit. 
Search YouTube for Penn and Teller New Age Medicine Bullshit, and jump to 17 minutes 1 second. (The youtube URL is blocked from posting to the talk page. Is it allowed to put a reference to that youtube video on the page itself?)
The "New Age Medicine" episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! deserves mention in this article, because it includes a good summary of TT and includes both historic video and original interviews with people already mentioned in this article. 
It's already mentioned in the "Appearances" section of Emily Rosa's page. 
*  "New Age Medicine". Penn & Teller: Bullshit! 2008. Showtime.
It could go into an "In Popular Culture" section, or it could be worked into part of the existing text, like the "Scientific Investigation" section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xardox (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pen and Teller "Bullshit" episode covers TT and interviews Emily Rosa

message: Here is something fascinating I learned from Emily Rosa's page, about her gratitude to Dolores Krieger for leaving basic research in TT for a 9-year-old child to do:
Keynoted the 1998 Ig Nobel Ceremonies at Harvard, and accepted the Award in Science Education for an absent Dolores Krieger, who "could not or would not attend" herself. Krieger, a nursing professor and co-inventor of Therapeutic Touch, was cited "for demonstrating the merits of therapeutic touch, a method by which nurses manipulate the energy fields of ailing patients by carefully avoiding physical contact with those patients." In her keynote, Rosa expressed her gratitude that Dr. Krieger had, for two decades, left basic research in TT for her to do. The next day, Rosa delivered an "Ig Nobel" Address at MIT.
It could go into the "Origin" section that quotes Dr. Krieger, to balance out its bias towards TT. Or it could go after the "Origin" section in a "Demise" section that discusses how TT fell in popularity as a result of the nine-year-old girl's research, as described on Emily Rosa's "Therapeutic Touch study / Reaction" subsection:
David J Hufford, felt the study presented ethical problems because the authors of the study enlisted the cooperation of the TT operators by presenting the study as just a "fourth grade science fair project." Hufford felt that this was failure of full disclosure and deceit. But Hufford's analysis did not acknowledge that the first round of tests was only a fourth grade science fair project done with no thought of future publication. Publication was suggested by Dr. Stephen Barrett months afterward when he learned that the study had taken place. The second round of tests was done at the request of Scientific American Frontiers, with the participants fully aware that they were being videotaped. No subsequent experiment has been undertaken overturning her findings.
Xardox (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolores Krieger's Ig Nobel Prize

message: Yarbol continues to erase my evidenced based journals on the positive impact to therapeutic touch, including the new 2015 scientific journal article showing TT decreasing metastatic cancer cells. This is blatant censorship. The line that Yarbol continues to place in the introductory body stating "the American Cancer Association does not recognize TT having any effect" has no credible source. When I click on his citation of that line I get an error page. That is why I deleted it. I did not delete any of the other skeptic's point because they have a right to their opinion, even if I do not agree with it, but you need to find evidence to back it up. The first line stating that TT is a "pseudoscience" is debatable and therefore should not be noted as fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixie6089 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting the dead link, I replaced it by an archive.org URL. Ping  (not Yarbol) for further explanation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review our guideline on reliable sources for medical claims. The source you are describing is a primary study done on animals, and being used to debunk secondary sources which raises doubts about the efficacy of TT. MEDRS explicitly forbids using sources like this.  Yobol (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pixie6089, when messages and warnings are left on your talk page, you are expected to read them, digest them, learn from them, and hopefully respond. --  {Talk} 01:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Hello , you say "Energy healing is proven". Do you have any source to back up that claim?--McSly (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

text: spelling an editor's name is important because doing so sends them an automated message. Getting snarky over this isn't helping your case. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for positive impact

message: This is an article about a healing technique that consists basically in critics to the technique.
It works much more as an ideologic propaganda than as an informative article. If Wikipedia wants to have a session about "possible misleadings healing techniques" and put this as one of them, that would be acceptable.
But creating an article about a healing technique only to criticize it is insane for any serious and responsible encyclopedia.
There are subjects which of course arise polemics, and even in those matters it's good to have an equilibrium. But a healing technique is not a polemical subject, it's just that: a healing technique. 
It would be enough to put a warning "this technique is not supported by medical comunity, etc" if we want to follow guidelines that the medical community decides what can be called "healing" in the encylopedia. But making an article that states of being about the subject only to criticize it makes Wikipedia looks petty small and unethical.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.133.188 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific edit you wish to make? Edaham (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous contributor, sadly there is almost nothing positive to say about this technique that can be backed up by reliable, independent, peer-reviewed medical sources. Wikipedia and it's many, many hardworking and committed editors are acting entirely responsibly in demanding a high level of evidence for medical claims. If we didn't then we would be complicit in the injury and deaths that might arise from disseminating poor medical advice. "Balance" (or as you put it "equilibrium") does not mean providing equal weight to both sides of an argument when one side has a disproportionate amount of evidence in its favour and the other side virtually nil. If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out. Good day to you. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideologic propaganda