Since discussion seems to have dried up here i thought i would go back and
look at an old piece from:

NURSE MARTHA ROGERS -a critical look by Robert Glickman


"I still am not sure what type of field, if there is more than one, that you
are talking about. You say that you had taken TT classes and used the
technique. Did you feel a HEF? Were the TT courses Rogerian based or the
'other' type?

"So please don't think you need to disentangle communication with me. These
aren't my terms. I am willing to test any TTP who states they can feel an
energy field, be they Rogerian or not. Now I would most prefer to test the
best the field has to offer, such as Dr. Kreiger or any of the other
Rogerian TTPs.

"It is important to note that testing and research need not be overly
complicated. Usually the simpler the better. I see nothing in the test we
have devised could be considered inappropriate. TTPs of all stripes claim to
feel HEFs. What is so complicated about that? Why wouldn't anyone want this
to be tested?

What occurs to me is: here is this fellow who considers himself a great
researcher. Yet he is sucked in by the 'randi (midget) challenge'. He also
repeatedly refers to someone he quotes (Francis Biley) as 'she' when had he
done even the most rudimentary checking of his sources he would have
realized that Fran is quite 'male'.

When I add in the number of misspellings of common, everyday words such as
'too' and 'due', what emerges is a portrait of a possibly not very talented
person with a penchant for failing to test his assumptions.

Anyone know anything about him that would alter that view?

Bear




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

People,

   Alternative Health magazine had a glowing article on Healing Touch, with
selected positive things to say about TT as well.  They trotted out all the
standard tests that "validate" TT.  The article didn't even acknowledge that the
skeptical position exists.
    Speaking of - there is a new skeptical book on TT, I'll try to goad one of
the authors to provide more details.
--

love and light,

    Eric Krieg      eric@...

http://www.phact.org/e/tt

PS: for nurses out there - I'm forwarding the following notice:
Subject:        Join us at the Nursing2000 Symposium
    Date:        Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:04:53 -0500 (EST)
   From:        webmaster@...


Have you heard about the Nursing2000 Symposium: Renewing Ideals, Inspiring
Excellence?

March 29-April 1, 2000
Hyatt Orlando
Orlando, FL

For more information, check out the complete brochure online at
http://www.springnet.com/n2000/splash_e.htm. Or call 1-888-499-6566 to have
one mailed to you.

Nursing2000 Symposium has a wide variety of topics! If you think any of your
colleagues would be interested in attending this conference, please forward
this message to them!

Nursing2000 Symposium is sponsored by Springhouse Corporation, publisher of
Nursing2000. The conference is endorsed by the Academy of Medical-Surgical
Nurses (AMSN); Florida Nurses Association (FNA); Association of Nurses in
AIDS Care (ANAC); Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses; National Nurses
Socity on Addictions (NNSA); and the American Society of Ophthalmic
Registered Nurses (ASORN).

>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

i'll be looking for your pic in the papers...

have a lot of chuckles...

bear
>
> Be watching for Georgia Tech in the Gator Bowl. If Tech wins, there
> may
> be some kind of bizzare rampage across northern Nevada and Utah
> (across
> which I'll be travelling about that time). "But yerhoner! The
> Testosterone made me do it!"
>
> paul
>
>
>

I wish you all a happy holiday season and  a beautiful and bright new year!
Thank you for all the wonderful dialogue in the last year.
Melinda

bear wrote on 12/22/99 11:34 AM:

>appropriate wishes to all for seasonal festivity and joy in the
>pre-pagan, pagan, or post-pagan activities of your choice...

I'm hoping for some seriously post-pagan activities that shan't be
discussed on this list, but reality will certainly get the best of me
<VBG>.
>
>just remember - if your sports team wins, no matter how boring the game
>- you might need to chew some anti-testosterone gum in the first few
>minutes after the game to avoid engagement in violent acts as a result
>of elevated salivary testosterone. This information could help keep you
>out of jail....

Be watching for Georgia Tech in the Gator Bowl. If Tech wins, there may
be some kind of bizzare rampage across northern Nevada and Utah (across
which I'll be travelling about that time). "But yerhoner! The
Testosterone made me do it!"

paul

ciao pablo.

appropriate wishes to all for seasonal festivity and joy in the
pre-pagan, pagan, or post-pagan activities of your choice...

just remember - if your sports team wins, no matter how boring the game
- you might need to chew some anti-testosterone gum in the first few
minutes after the game to avoid engagement in violent acts as a result
of elevated salivary testosterone. This information could help keep you
out of jail....

bear

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

Since we'd be going in circles at this point, all your qeustions below
asked before and answered since, this is it for me on this round.

For *anyone* on this list, including bear, who want a copy of the write
ups of the several testosterone and sports fans studies, send me an email
with your name and land mail address and I'll get them out as my time
allows (I will be traveling a lot over the next month, to State College,
PA and to Albuquerque, NM), certainly within a week or so.

For those who want to see the *brief* summary of two of the studies:

http://www.gse.utah.edu/edpsy/testofan.htm

ciao!

Paul

bear wrote on 12/19/99 5:06 PM:

>From: bear <tc_spirit@...>
>
>Paul,
>
>i did find the link. not exactly where i would have thought it would be
>but that is okay.
>
>now let's think the situation through together. In the soccer study we
>have confounding by nationality. A conclusion parallel to your own
>might have read - brazilian men experience an increase in salivary
>testosterone following a sporting event while italian men experience a
>decrease in salivary testosterone after a sporting event.
>
>Clearly, in the soccer study there is a very real question about the
>significance of the effect of the game when the game ended in a tie
>that was resolved by penalty kicks - a pretty tame resolution compared
>with regular play where one expects everyone to be 'pumped'.
>
>Of course there may be other confounds as well. Did the food intake for
>the two nationalities differ? Might this be related to salivary
>testosterone levels? If, as seems to be the case, the effect on
>salivary testosterone is virtually determined by the final outcome of
>the game rather than the process of the game - how is it that this
>isn't shifted back to more normal range in the up to 15 minutes that
>might have elapsed between the end of the game and the collection of
>the second samples. Also, why is it that there weren't several measures
>of salivary testosterone before the game which would have allowed a far
>better assessment of the significance of the shift?
>
>Why isn't there a control group of male fans who are in attendance but
>indifferent to the game outcome or perhaps a concurrent control group
>of men that weren't involved with any sports activity at the time the
>study was being conducted? How do we really know the degree to which
>the fans are invested in the outcome - no data is presented on this.
>
>According to criticisms that you have advanced with regard to tt
>research these should, it would seem, have been no-brainer controls to
>implement.
>
>Again, the point here is not to put your study on the chopping block
>and critique it which is easy enough to do. The point is that well
>meaning people often work within restrictions that represent the best
>that they can do at the time they are conducting their research and
>that it isn't necessarily fair to take potshots at research when we do
>not know what was and was not feasible at the time that the researcher
>had to plow ahead. As regards theses and dissertations, as we all well
>know, they are quite often political compromises that are designed to
>satisfy competing interests among a dissertation committee rather than
>the very best 'scientific work' that could be done.
>
>Now you don't happen to like TT for whatever reasons you have. Your
>approach to TT research is not, as you have amply demonstrated, to find
>a way of validating an effect, but the much easier task of not
>validating an 'effect'. Failing to find an effect is a far cry from
>proving that an effect does not exist however. As i have suggested
>repeatedly, all it takes to design a study that will fail to
>corroborate an effect is to design a poor study. There is ample
>evidence of this in the 'skeptical' community which tends, as you have,
>to say: "prove it to me". Now, if, in fact, you found a way to control
>for heat and not at the same time interfere with non-heat energy
>detection it should be possible for you to describe how you did that.
>Did you do this in your study with rebecca? Or did you beg the question
>by assuming that there was no issue - i.e. that you could control heat
>energy detection without interfering with any other form of energy
>detection? If the latter - no fair. Just bad science. If you did
>institute ssuch controls, please describe them for us.
>> Message: 2
>>    Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:29:51 -0700
>>    From: pbern10 <pbern10@...>
>> Subject: Re: Digest Number 301
>>
>> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>>
>> >there are far better things to do - the quality of the journal it is
>> >published in is such that it is pointless to point out flaws - i'd
>> >categorize it as a 'vanity' journal. let's see - if you want to
>> publish
>> >an article that exceeds 6 pages you buy 200 reprints - right?
>>
>> Nope, not at all. I didn't pay for any extra reprints beyond those
>> provided free of charge (I know how to use a xerox machine to produce
>> any
>> beyond that minimum of 50).
>>
>> Paul
>
>please go back and look at what i wrote - it was rather specific. The
>journal in question has a policy that if the length of the article
>exceeds 6 pages the author is supposed to buy 200 reprints from the
>publisher. I don't quite understand what the issue of a "minimum of 50"
>refers to. Are you required to buy some at all? In any event, it
>doesn't change my sense that this is a vanity journal rather than a
>hard science journal. vanity status doesn't mean that they might not
>publish good articles now and again - but it isn't quite the same thing
>as a peer reviewed journal where the authors have no right to even
>suggest who the reviewers might be.
>
>Bear
>> >
>> >will recheck asap after you review and report back to the list on
>> your
>> >analysis of my statistical critique of the JAMA article.
>>
>> You are the *best*!!! I've not had such a belly laugh all week! Good
>> thing I put up the URL so others have already gone to the site and
>> seen
>> that you'd simply missed (or purposefully misrepresented?) my having
>> the
>> raw data on the site. Well done! (that is, the humor you've brought
>> so
>> many people...)
>>
>> Paul
>
>thanks paul - no problem at all. you are apparently quite easy to
>amuse.
>
>bear
>> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>>
>> >If this is
>> >the case why not simply accept the fact that these decisions are
>> >political and economic decisions not scientific decisions?
>>
>> They are a horrid mix of all three. I'll admit too little science and
>> too
>> much economics goes into insurance and HMO decisions. Politics is in
>> the
>> eye of the beholder (as are the other things, I suppose) and I don't
>> think they enter so much as you appear to think.
>>
>> Paul
>
>beg to differ. i spent the better part of a decade working in insurance
>companies - they make far more politically and economically motivated
>decisions than they do science based decisions.
>
>
>> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>>
>> >BINGO: Wallace is citing the JAMA study as though it were credible.
>> How
>> >many articles that are supportive of TT has SRAM published? Is it
>> >really objective or does the fact that Stephen Barrett is an
>> 'editor'
>> >and Wallace fails to point out that the JAMA study is very
>> 'incredible'
>> >really suggest that SRAM is biased against alternative medicine in
>> its
>> >editorial policy?
>>
>> Have you knowledge of anyone submitting a TT study to SRAM for
>> publication? Or are you merely asserting bias without any event with
>> which to substantiate it?
>>
>> Paul
>
>again, please read the above. I didn't say sram editorial policy was
>biased - i wondered out loud about the significance of using the JAMA
>study as though it were credible and about the possible significance to
>be attached to someone that runs 'quackwatch' being an editor of an
>ostensibly unbiased journal. But it goes a little further than that
>doesn't it - barrett's participation isn't just as a guest editor -
>don't the subscriptions go through him as well????? Since you are the
>person asserting that SRAM is a good place to go for an objective
>hearing perhaps you can cite the articles that have been published in
>it that are favorable to alternative and complementary medicine. I of
>course, would not be privy to articles that were submitted and rejected
>whereas you might have a pretty easy time of it to report back on the
>articles that have been published that are favorable to say:
>chiropractic, TT, herbalism,.....
>
>As a footnote - Wallace did get in touch with me a few weeks back. He
>did not, however, explain who he was, his affiliation with SRAM or the
>fact that stephen barrett was involved with it - that info i found on
>my own. When I wrote back and told him that I would like to know who he
>was and what he wanted to 'quote' me on - I never heard from him again.
>For me that doesn't instill a lot of confidence....
>
>bear
>> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>>
>> >OKAY! I think i am tuning in. So here is a scenario. It is only, if
>> i
>> >read this correctly, winning that contributes to increases in
>> >testosterone. So here we are, out at the sports stadium on a
>> saturday
>> >afternoon. our two teams battle mightily against each other and team
>> A
>> >has been losing all day. In the last 3 seconds of the game - team A
>> >scores and wins the day and immediately the testosterone levels in
>> >saliva for those fans increases while the testosterone levels for
>> the
>> >fans of team B drop. And this effect is demonstrable 100% (nope -
>> let's
>> >give you the same benefit of the doubt that randi would - 95%) of
>> the
>> >time. I doubt it somehow. Can you prove this?
>>
>> Never made that claim, that the phenomena occurs 100% of the time, so
>>
>> once again YPWIMM!
>>
>> Paul
>
>go back and look at your foray into nancy woods. She never suggested
>that what she did was done 100% of the time but YOU jumped to that
>point, a la randi. My point, apparently slightly too subtle for you,
>was that it is inappropriate to make such assumptions about 'skills'.
>Very little phenomena occurs 100% of the time and any research that
>begins by trying to entrap someone into such a statement is unlikely to
>be 'scientific'.
>
>you would not want to get trapped in such a position so why is it
>appropriate to flout the randi challenge when we both know that randi's
>approach is to try to do exactly that? Let's all acknowledge, as i have
>suggested, that the randi challenge is hogwash and ought not to be
>repeated by anyone with an interest in 'science'.
>
>bear
>> >Paul Wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is lots I don't know and I don't really care if I ever do
>> >> another
>> >> study relevant to TT in my career. But help was asked for and I
>> >> tossed in
>> >> my hat. I didn't see you helping, you are only carping from the
>> >> peanut
>> >> gallery.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually, you are mis-characterizing me - i wasn't privy to the
>> request
>> >for assistance so suggesting that i didn't volunteer is inaccurate.
>> >maybe i would have if i had been privy to the request. So, now, who
>> >were the TT supporters on the design team here? Who were the TTPs?
>> >Share it with us.
>>
>> Grant offered a research design on the list for public discussion to
>> improve the design. I took up the offer. You didn't. You decided to
>> attack my attempts to help.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>not quite accurate. Once again you are making wildly erroneous
>statements. Actually, grant and I have had a number of off list emails
>and have discussed the issues of research design and other things. So,
>your presumption that I have offered no assistance is incorrect. I note
>that you did not respond to the issue of who the pro-TT members of the
>design team in the rebecca/paul study were. Or do you believe that
>anti-TT researchers do not need to have a TT supporter available
>whereas pro-TT researchers should always have a skeptic available?
>
>bottom line - your published research has deficiencies. so does some TT
>research and certainly the JAMA article is basically many deficiencies
>loosely sewed together with incompetencies. Why should the TT
>researchers work products be better than yours? Will you share your
>research design issues in the study with rebecca with us - specifically
>how did you go about insuring that when you blocked heat you did not
>also block non-thermal energy?
>
>bear
>__________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------
>

Paul,

i did find the link. not exactly where i would have thought it would be
but that is okay.

now let's think the situation through together. In the soccer study we
have confounding by nationality. A conclusion parallel to your own
might have read - brazilian men experience an increase in salivary
testosterone following a sporting event while italian men experience a
decrease in salivary testosterone after a sporting event.

Clearly, in the soccer study there is a very real question about the
significance of the effect of the game when the game ended in a tie
that was resolved by penalty kicks - a pretty tame resolution compared
with regular play where one expects everyone to be 'pumped'.

Of course there may be other confounds as well. Did the food intake for
the two nationalities differ? Might this be related to salivary
testosterone levels? If, as seems to be the case, the effect on
salivary testosterone is virtually determined by the final outcome of
the game rather than the process of the game - how is it that this
isn't shifted back to more normal range in the up to 15 minutes that
might have elapsed between the end of the game and the collection of
the second samples. Also, why is it that there weren't several measures
of salivary testosterone before the game which would have allowed a far
better assessment of the significance of the shift?

Why isn't there a control group of male fans who are in attendance but
indifferent to the game outcome or perhaps a concurrent control group
of men that weren't involved with any sports activity at the time the
study was being conducted? How do we really know the degree to which
the fans are invested in the outcome - no data is presented on this.

According to criticisms that you have advanced with regard to tt
research these should, it would seem, have been no-brainer controls to
implement.

Again, the point here is not to put your study on the chopping block
and critique it which is easy enough to do. The point is that well
meaning people often work within restrictions that represent the best
that they can do at the time they are conducting their research and
that it isn't necessarily fair to take potshots at research when we do
not know what was and was not feasible at the time that the researcher
had to plow ahead. As regards theses and dissertations, as we all well
know, they are quite often political compromises that are designed to
satisfy competing interests among a dissertation committee rather than
the very best 'scientific work' that could be done.

Now you don't happen to like TT for whatever reasons you have. Your
approach to TT research is not, as you have amply demonstrated, to find
a way of validating an effect, but the much easier task of not
validating an 'effect'. Failing to find an effect is a far cry from
proving that an effect does not exist however. As i have suggested
repeatedly, all it takes to design a study that will fail to
corroborate an effect is to design a poor study. There is ample
evidence of this in the 'skeptical' community which tends, as you have,
to say: "prove it to me". Now, if, in fact, you found a way to control
for heat and not at the same time interfere with non-heat energy
detection it should be possible for you to describe how you did that.
Did you do this in your study with rebecca? Or did you beg the question
by assuming that there was no issue - i.e. that you could control heat
energy detection without interfering with any other form of energy
detection? If the latter - no fair. Just bad science. If you did
institute ssuch controls, please describe them for us.
> Message: 2
>    Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:29:51 -0700
>    From: pbern10 <pbern10@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 301
>
> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>
> >there are far better things to do - the quality of the journal it is
> >published in is such that it is pointless to point out flaws - i'd
> >categorize it as a 'vanity' journal. let's see - if you want to
> publish
> >an article that exceeds 6 pages you buy 200 reprints - right?
>
> Nope, not at all. I didn't pay for any extra reprints beyond those
> provided free of charge (I know how to use a xerox machine to produce
> any
> beyond that minimum of 50).
>
> Paul

please go back and look at what i wrote - it was rather specific. The
journal in question has a policy that if the length of the article
exceeds 6 pages the author is supposed to buy 200 reprints from the
publisher. I don't quite understand what the issue of a "minimum of 50"
refers to. Are you required to buy some at all? In any event, it
doesn't change my sense that this is a vanity journal rather than a
hard science journal. vanity status doesn't mean that they might not
publish good articles now and again - but it isn't quite the same thing
as a peer reviewed journal where the authors have no right to even
suggest who the reviewers might be.

Bear
> >
> >will recheck asap after you review and report back to the list on
> your
> >analysis of my statistical critique of the JAMA article.
>
> You are the *best*!!! I've not had such a belly laugh all week! Good
> thing I put up the URL so others have already gone to the site and
> seen
> that you'd simply missed (or purposefully misrepresented?) my having
> the
> raw data on the site. Well done! (that is, the humor you've brought
> so
> many people...)
>
> Paul

thanks paul - no problem at all. you are apparently quite easy to
amuse.

bear
> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>
> >If this is
> >the case why not simply accept the fact that these decisions are
> >political and economic decisions not scientific decisions?
>
> They are a horrid mix of all three. I'll admit too little science and
> too
> much economics goes into insurance and HMO decisions. Politics is in
> the
> eye of the beholder (as are the other things, I suppose) and I don't
> think they enter so much as you appear to think.
>
> Paul

beg to differ. i spent the better part of a decade working in insurance
companies - they make far more politically and economically motivated
decisions than they do science based decisions.


> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>
> >BINGO: Wallace is citing the JAMA study as though it were credible.
> How
> >many articles that are supportive of TT has SRAM published? Is it
> >really objective or does the fact that Stephen Barrett is an
> 'editor'
> >and Wallace fails to point out that the JAMA study is very
> 'incredible'
> >really suggest that SRAM is biased against alternative medicine in
> its
> >editorial policy?
>
> Have you knowledge of anyone submitting a TT study to SRAM for
> publication? Or are you merely asserting bias without any event with
> which to substantiate it?
>
> Paul

again, please read the above. I didn't say sram editorial policy was
biased - i wondered out loud about the significance of using the JAMA
study as though it were credible and about the possible significance to
be attached to someone that runs 'quackwatch' being an editor of an
ostensibly unbiased journal. But it goes a little further than that
doesn't it - barrett's participation isn't just as a guest editor -
don't the subscriptions go through him as well????? Since you are the
person asserting that SRAM is a good place to go for an objective
hearing perhaps you can cite the articles that have been published in
it that are favorable to alternative and complementary medicine. I of
course, would not be privy to articles that were submitted and rejected
whereas you might have a pretty easy time of it to report back on the
articles that have been published that are favorable to say:
chiropractic, TT, herbalism,.....

As a footnote - Wallace did get in touch with me a few weeks back. He
did not, however, explain who he was, his affiliation with SRAM or the
fact that stephen barrett was involved with it - that info i found on
my own. When I wrote back and told him that I would like to know who he
was and what he wanted to 'quote' me on - I never heard from him again.
For me that doesn't instill a lot of confidence....

bear
> bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:
>
> >OKAY! I think i am tuning in. So here is a scenario. It is only, if
> i
> >read this correctly, winning that contributes to increases in
> >testosterone. So here we are, out at the sports stadium on a
> saturday
> >afternoon. our two teams battle mightily against each other and team
> A
> >has been losing all day. In the last 3 seconds of the game - team A
> >scores and wins the day and immediately the testosterone levels in
> >saliva for those fans increases while the testosterone levels for
> the
> >fans of team B drop. And this effect is demonstrable 100% (nope -
> let's
> >give you the same benefit of the doubt that randi would - 95%) of
> the
> >time. I doubt it somehow. Can you prove this?
>
> Never made that claim, that the phenomena occurs 100% of the time, so
>
> once again YPWIMM!
>
> Paul

go back and look at your foray into nancy woods. She never suggested
that what she did was done 100% of the time but YOU jumped to that
point, a la randi. My point, apparently slightly too subtle for you,
was that it is inappropriate to make such assumptions about 'skills'.
Very little phenomena occurs 100% of the time and any research that
begins by trying to entrap someone into such a statement is unlikely to
be 'scientific'.

you would not want to get trapped in such a position so why is it
appropriate to flout the randi challenge when we both know that randi's
approach is to try to do exactly that? Let's all acknowledge, as i have
suggested, that the randi challenge is hogwash and ought not to be
repeated by anyone with an interest in 'science'.

bear
> >Paul Wrote:
> >
> >> There is lots I don't know and I don't really care if I ever do
> >> another
> >> study relevant to TT in my career. But help was asked for and I
> >> tossed in
> >> my hat. I didn't see you helping, you are only carping from the
> >> peanut
> >> gallery.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, you are mis-characterizing me - i wasn't privy to the
> request
> >for assistance so suggesting that i didn't volunteer is inaccurate.
> >maybe i would have if i had been privy to the request. So, now, who
> >were the TT supporters on the design team here? Who were the TTPs?
> >Share it with us.
>
> Grant offered a research design on the list for public discussion to
> improve the design. I took up the offer. You didn't. You decided to
> attack my attempts to help.
>
> Paul
>
not quite accurate. Once again you are making wildly erroneous
statements. Actually, grant and I have had a number of off list emails
and have discussed the issues of research design and other things. So,
your presumption that I have offered no assistance is incorrect. I note
that you did not respond to the issue of who the pro-TT members of the
design team in the rebecca/paul study were. Or do you believe that
anti-TT researchers do not need to have a TT supporter available
whereas pro-TT researchers should always have a skeptic available?

bottom line - your published research has deficiencies. so does some TT
research and certainly the JAMA article is basically many deficiencies
loosely sewed together with incompetencies. Why should the TT
researchers work products be better than yours? Will you share your
research design issues in the study with rebecca with us - specifically
how did you go about insuring that when you blocked heat you did not
also block non-thermal energy?

bear
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:

>Paul Wrote:
>
>> There is lots I don't know and I don't really care if I ever do
>> another
>> study relevant to TT in my career. But help was asked for and I
>> tossed in
>> my hat. I didn't see you helping, you are only carping from the
>> peanut
>> gallery.
>>
>
>Actually, you are mis-characterizing me - i wasn't privy to the request
>for assistance so suggesting that i didn't volunteer is inaccurate.
>maybe i would have if i had been privy to the request. So, now, who
>were the TT supporters on the design team here? Who were the TTPs?
>Share it with us.

Grant offered a research design on the list for public discussion to
improve the design. I took up the offer. You didn't. You decided to
attack my attempts to help.

Paul

bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:

>OKAY! I think i am tuning in. So here is a scenario. It is only, if i
>read this correctly, winning that contributes to increases in
>testosterone. So here we are, out at the sports stadium on a saturday
>afternoon. our two teams battle mightily against each other and team A
>has been losing all day. In the last 3 seconds of the game - team A
>scores and wins the day and immediately the testosterone levels in
>saliva for those fans increases while the testosterone levels for the
>fans of team B drop. And this effect is demonstrable 100% (nope - let's
>give you the same benefit of the doubt that randi would - 95%) of the
>time. I doubt it somehow. Can you prove this?

Never made that claim, that the phenomena occurs 100% of the time, so
once again YPWIMM!

Paul

bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:

>BINGO: Wallace is citing the JAMA study as though it were credible. How
>many articles that are supportive of TT has SRAM published? Is it
>really objective or does the fact that Stephen Barrett is an 'editor'
>and Wallace fails to point out that the JAMA study is very 'incredible'
>really suggest that SRAM is biased against alternative medicine in its
>editorial policy?

Have you knowledge of anyone submitting a TT study to SRAM for
publication? Or are you merely asserting bias without any event with
which to substantiate it?

Paul

bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:

>If this is
>the case why not simply accept the fact that these decisions are
>political and economic decisions not scientific decisions?

They are a horrid mix of all three. I'll admit too little science and too
much economics goes into insurance and HMO decisions. Politics is in the
eye of the beholder (as are the other things, I suppose) and I don't
think they enter so much as you appear to think.

Paul

bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:

>> LOL! The raw data is there... apparently you didn't look at the site
>> very
>> closely...try again and get back to the group with what you find.
>>
>> for those of you who want to see for yourselves that the data is
>> there:
>>
>> http://www.gse.utah.edu/edpsy/testofan.htm
>
>will recheck asap after you review and report back to the list on your
>analysis of my statistical critique of the JAMA article.

You are the *best*!!! I've not had such a belly laugh all week! Good
thing I put up the URL so others have already gone to the site and seen
that you'd simply missed (or purposefully misrepresented?) my having the
raw data on the site. Well done! (that is, the humor you've brought so
many people...)

Paul

bear wrote on 12/18/99 11:50 AM:

>there are far better things to do - the quality of the journal it is
>published in is such that it is pointless to point out flaws - i'd
>categorize it as a 'vanity' journal. let's see - if you want to publish
>an article that exceeds 6 pages you buy 200 reprints - right?

Nope, not at all. I didn't pay for any extra reprints beyond those
provided free of charge (I know how to use a xerox machine to produce any
beyond that minimum of 50).

Paul

> > bear wrote on 12/16/99 6:33 AM:
> >
> > >You assert that i haven't the benefit of reading the 'real'
> > >paper but somehow I suspect that your reading of TT literature is,
> > at
> > >best, superficial - the difference is that i have acknowledged
> > reading
> > >very little of your work - are you now willing to admit that your
> > >perusal of the tt literature is lacking?
> >
> > I've never said differently.

funny, until now i have never heard you state that you are unfamiliar
with the tt literature. Now i am a newcomer to this forum but wouldn't
it be a good idea to qualify each of your communications with a
statement of ignorance?


> >
> > This is a favorite tactic of yours. You assert, or imply, that I've
> > said
> > something that I've never said (such as your assertion above that I
> > claim
> > extensive reading of TT literature) then proceed to knock over that
>
> > statement. That (improper) form of argument is called 'straw man'
> > because
> > it creates a false object which is then easily attacked.
> >
> > With regards to your not reading my paper. All I've said is if you
> > have a
> > substantial criticism to make, the proper forum is the journal in
> > which
> > the paper was published, Physiology and Behavior, via a letter to
> the
> >
> > editor. If you chose to go that direction, I'll gladly send you a
> > copy of
> > the paper, just send me a land mail address to which I may send it.
> > The
> > web page admits in the first sentence that it is not the full paper
> > and
> > shouldn't be taken as such.
> >
> > Paul

there are far better things to do - the quality of the journal it is
published in is such that it is pointless to point out flaws - i'd
categorize it as a 'vanity' journal. let's see - if you want to publish
an article that exceeds 6 pages you buy 200 reprints - right?

> LOL! The raw data is there... apparently you didn't look at the site
> very
> closely...try again and get back to the group with what you find.
>
> for those of you who want to see for yourselves that the data is
> there:
>
> http://www.gse.utah.edu/edpsy/testofan.htm

will recheck asap after you review and report back to the list on your
analysis of my statistical critique of the JAMA article.


> >
> >that is: i am going to assume that your work is 'unsupported' until
> you
> >prove to me that it is supported. sound familiar? it is your
> rejoinder
> >to TTPs....
>
> Again you put words into my mouth. This is such a frequent occurance
> with
> you that I'll now abreviate it: YPWIMM
> >
> >now i have freely admitted to having been involved in far less
> rigorous
> >research even then your unsupported work on testosterone.
>
> YPWIMM

WARNING!!!!!! Inappropriate use of YPWIMM - this is a statement about
me not about you. therefore it is inappropriate to use YPWIMM here. If
you are going to introduce an acronym at least use it as intended.
>
> >As far as I
> >am concerned, until you prove the dubious quality of your work or
> admit
> >that it is no better, and in fact, far worse than much TT research,
> I
> >really think you ought to desist critiquing TT and people who are
> >trying to work on that subject.
>
> I don't need to prove the quality of my work to you.  No single
> research
> project is perfect and there certainly are limitations to the study
> you
> are carping about (without having ever read... the offer to send you
> a
> copy is still open! Hell, I'll send a copy to anyone on this list
> who'll
> send me their land mail address for it.).
>
> And I know this: TTers don't need to prove their work to *me*. But,
> they
> do need to prove their work to folks who make decisions on what
> therapies
> to offer and how much to pay for them (i.e.: Insurance companies and
> medical administrators). Others will be providing critiques (be
> looking
> for a book to come out in about June which is filled with critiques
> of
> TT). The decision makers will be swayed by the TTers or by the
> critiquers.... The TTers were winning, but the JAMA study was a
> stunning
> setback for them.

Hmm now here is an example of real paucity in thinking. The JAMA study
is obviously flawed. Go back and read mine and other people's
critiques. So, in essence, what you are asserting here is that the
process of deliberation on the part of insurance companies and medical
administrators is highly influenced by inadequate research. If this is
the case why not simply accept the fact that these decisions are
political and economic decisions not scientific decisions?

If the JAMA study was such a setback in these settings there is little
hope that science rather than politicking will govern future decisions.
Now just as an aside - understand that insurance companies actually
make decisions that are related to what will save money - not
necessarily provide benefit. if people believe that TT is superior to
chiropractic which most back injured people believe to be better than
orthopedic care in the relief of pain then insurance companies will
move in that direction if TT is cheaper for them. If you actually
believe that insurance company executives sit around discussing the
relative merits of different treatments based on efficacy you are sadly
mistaken.

If you are so certain of your critique of the JAMA
> study, why not send it to JAMA for publication? With new editors,
> they
> might be willing to publish it! Or better, send it to Scientific
> Review
> of Alternative Medicine (SRAM). They just published a study (which I
> co-authored) which addressed issues not originally raised in the JAMA
>
> study. In the editorial of the issue, Dr. Wallace Sampson described
> the
> paper thusly, "Rebecca Long's study on therapeutic touch (TT) is a
> carefully planned and executed experiment that confirms the Rosa JAMA
>
> study.

BINGO: Wallace is citing the JAMA study as though it were credible. How
many articles that are supportive of TT has SRAM published? Is it
really objective or does the fact that Stephen Barrett is an 'editor'
and Wallace fails to point out that the JAMA study is very 'incredible'
really suggest that SRAM is biased against alternative medicine in its
editorial policy?

Controls were improved, and heat was found to be the likely
> source
> of the sensations felt by TTers and their subjects. Heat may not be
> the
> only explanation, however. There are other possibilities not
> eliminated-the most common being expectation, suggestion, and
> imagination... The editors are  pleased that SRAM is able to publish
> this
> paper. I should get as much publicity as the JAMA one, but it
> probably
> won't."
>

I can't address the design issues - i'll see if i can get a copy
eventually but my library doesn't have sram so it may be a while.
However, if you and rebecca failed to insure that while you were
blocking heat energy you weren't also blocking whatever else it is that
the subjects might use to do their work then your work was clearly not
well designed. So, what controls did you and Rebecca institute to make
sure that ONLY heat energy was blocked? Which prior studies have
demonstrated that the controls were selective? Were they based on
credible technique? Were they published in 'refereed' journals or in
the vanity press?


> >At least some people perceive some
> >benefit to TT - I am not at all sure what the advantages of
> >testosterone levels in the saliva of sports fans is supposed to
> mean?
> >Is this line of inquiry being pursued with my tax dollars?
>
> It was. Yes, National Science Foundation grant to the second author.
> His
> grant was to look for behavioral and experiential correlates with
> testosterone that might be relevant to aggressive behavior by groups
> and
> individuals. Kemper postulated that since competitors had increases
> in
> testosterone after winning and that fans formed strong affiliations
> with
> their favored teams, they might vicariously experience the outcome of
> the
> game and have simlar testosterone changes. Testosterone is known to
> be
> associated with dominance behaviors, particularly aggression.
> Research by
> others showed an increase in aggression towards women after local
> football team victories. The relevance was this process might explain
>
> some of the increase in aggression on women after winning games.
> Though
> this research didn't attempt to directly address that question, the
> reason for the study emerged from those notions.
>
> White, G. F., Katz, J., & Scarborough, K. E. The impact of
> professional
> football games upon violent assaults on women. Violence Vict.
> 7:157-171;
> 1992.
>
> Kemper, T. Social structure and testosterone. New Brunswick, NJ:
> Rutgers
> University Press; 1990.
> >

OKAY! I think i am tuning in. So here is a scenario. It is only, if i
read this correctly, winning that contributes to increases in
testosterone. So here we are, out at the sports stadium on a saturday
afternoon. our two teams battle mightily against each other and team A
has been losing all day. In the last 3 seconds of the game - team A
scores and wins the day and immediately the testosterone levels in
saliva for those fans increases while the testosterone levels for the
fans of team B drop. And this effect is demonstrable 100% (nope - let's
give you the same benefit of the doubt that randi would - 95%) of the
time. I doubt it somehow. Can you prove this?

Now, on to an even more important issue. Of what consequence is this.
Suppose being a fan of a winning team is related to increases in
testosterone. Are you suggesting that violence against women will drop
as a result of this knowledge? Perhaps you will require that fans take
a dose of thorazine before games? Maybe some enterprising lawyer will
develop the Bernhardt defense - violent males who attack women are
really not guilty of their deeds - they were merely unfortunate enough
to have been rooting for the winning team on saturday afternoon. A
great advance for humanity.


> >try to soften up a bit paul. maybe if you admit that there is much
> you
> >do not know - someone will actually let you participate in research
> on
> >TT some day - isn't that what you really want?
>
> There is lots I don't know and I don't really care if I ever do
> another
> study relevant to TT in my career. But help was asked for and I
> tossed in
> my hat. I didn't see you helping, you are only carping from the
> peanut
> gallery.
>

Actually, you are mis-characterizing me - i wasn't privy to the request
for assistance so suggesting that i didn't volunteer is inaccurate.
maybe i would have if i had been privy to the request. So, now, who
were the TT supporters on the design team here? Who were the TTPs?
Share it with us.

bear


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

bear wrote on 12/17/99 11:34 AM:

>From: bear <tc_spirit@...>
>
>
>funny paul - this reads far more like a description of what you and
>some of your fellow critics of TT do then what i have done.
>
>your web page does seem to describe itself as being available to people
>who might want to do a meta-analysis. here's a suggestion: put the data
>for the project/paper up on the web site and we can all take a look at
>what you consider to be publishable quality work. til then, as you have
>done so many times, i am just gonna assume that your best, published
>work is simply unjustifiable from an experimental design standpoint.

LOL! The raw data is there... apparently you didn't look at the site very
closely...try again and get back to the group with what you find.

for those of you who want to see for yourselves that the data is there:

http://www.gse.utah.edu/edpsy/testofan.htm
>
>that is: i am going to assume that your work is 'unsupported' until you
>prove to me that it is supported. sound familiar? it is your rejoinder
>to TTPs....

Again you put words into my mouth. This is such a frequent occurance with
you that I'll now abreviate it: YPWIMM
>
>now i have freely admitted to having been involved in far less rigorous
>research even then your unsupported work on testosterone.

YPWIMM

>As far as I
>am concerned, until you prove the dubious quality of your work or admit
>that it is no better, and in fact, far worse than much TT research, I
>really think you ought to desist critiquing TT and people who are
>trying to work on that subject.

I don't need to prove the quality of my work to you.  No single research
project is perfect and there certainly are limitations to the study you
are carping about (without having ever read... the offer to send you a
copy is still open! Hell, I'll send a copy to anyone on this list who'll
send me their land mail address for it.).

And I know this: TTers don't need to prove their work to *me*. But, they
do need to prove their work to folks who make decisions on what therapies
to offer and how much to pay for them (i.e.: Insurance companies and
medical administrators). Others will be providing critiques (be looking
for a book to come out in about June which is filled with critiques of
TT). The decision makers will be swayed by the TTers or by the
critiquers.... The TTers were winning, but the JAMA study was a stunning
setback for them. If you are so certain of your critique of the JAMA
study, why not send it to JAMA for publication? With new editors, they
might be willing to publish it! Or better, send it to Scientific Review
of Alternative Medicine (SRAM). They just published a study (which I
co-authored) which addressed issues not originally raised in the JAMA
study. In the editorial of the issue, Dr. Wallace Sampson described the
paper thusly, "Rebecca Long's study on therapeutic touch (TT) is a
carefully planned and executed experiment that confirms the Rosa JAMA
study. Controls were improved, and heat was found to be the likely source
of the sensations felt by TTers and their subjects. Heat may not be the
only explanation, however. There are other possibilities not
eliminated-the most common being expectation, suggestion, and
imagination... The editors are  pleased that SRAM is able to publish this
paper. I should get as much publicity as the JAMA one, but it probably
won't."

>At least some people perceive some
>benefit to TT - I am not at all sure what the advantages of
>testosterone levels in the saliva of sports fans is supposed to mean?
>Is this line of inquiry being pursued with my tax dollars?

It was. Yes, National Science Foundation grant to the second author. His
grant was to look for behavioral and experiential correlates with
testosterone that might be relevant to aggressive behavior by groups and
individuals. Kemper postulated that since competitors had increases in
testosterone after winning and that fans formed strong affiliations with
their favored teams, they might vicariously experience the outcome of the
game and have simlar testosterone changes. Testosterone is known to be
associated with dominance behaviors, particularly aggression. Research by
others showed an increase in aggression towards women after local
football team victories. The relevance was this process might explain
some of the increase in aggression on women after winning games. Though
this research didn't attempt to directly address that question, the
reason for the study emerged from those notions.

White, G. F., Katz, J., & Scarborough, K. E. The impact of professional
football games upon violent assaults on women. Violence Vict. 7:157-171;
1992.

Kemper, T. Social structure and testosterone. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press; 1990.
>
>try to soften up a bit paul. maybe if you admit that there is much you
>do not know - someone will actually let you participate in research on
>TT some day - isn't that what you really want?

There is lots I don't know and I don't really care if I ever do another
study relevant to TT in my career. But help was asked for and I tossed in
my hat. I didn't see you helping, you are only carping from the peanut
gallery.

Paul

>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

> Message: 2
>    Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:29:43 -0700
>    From: pbern10 <pbern10@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 299
>
> bear wrote on 12/16/99 6:33 AM:
>
> >You assert that i haven't the benefit of reading the 'real'
> >paper but somehow I suspect that your reading of TT literature is,
> at
> >best, superficial - the difference is that i have acknowledged
> reading
> >very little of your work - are you now willing to admit that your
> >perusal of the tt literature is lacking?
>
> I've never said differently.
>
> This is a favorite tactic of yours. You assert, or imply, that I've
> said
> something that I've never said (such as your assertion above that I
> claim
> extensive reading of TT literature) then proceed to knock over that
> statement. That (improper) form of argument is called 'straw man'
> because
> it creates a false object which is then easily attacked.
>
> With regards to your not reading my paper. All I've said is if you
> have a
> substantial criticism to make, the proper forum is the journal in
> which
> the paper was published, Physiology and Behavior, via a letter to the
>
> editor. If you chose to go that direction, I'll gladly send you a
> copy of
> the paper, just send me a land mail address to which I may send it.
> The
> web page admits in the first sentence that it is not the full paper
> and
> shouldn't be taken as such.
>
> Paul
>
>
>

> Message: 1
>    Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:33:13 -0800 (PST)
>    From: bear <tc_spirit@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 299
>
> paul:
>
> i have read your rebuttal. i don't think it will withstand critical
> inquiry. my point is simply this: when you design studies they do not
> meet the criteria you expect from others. given that very simple fact
> i
> think it is hypocritical for you to demand a higher standard from
> other
> people. You assert that i haven't the benefit of reading the 'real'
> paper but somehow I suspect that your reading of TT literature is, at
> best, superficial - the difference is that i have acknowledged
> reading
> very little of your work - are you now willing to admit that your
> perusal of the tt literature is lacking? conducting scientific
> inquiry
> is difficult not easy. it behooves all of us to keep in mind that
> there
> is much work that goes on that we are not privy to. at the same time,
> it also behooves us to avoid labeling other people and fields of
> inquiry as fraudulent simply because we do not really understand
> them.
>
> nobody has any obligation whatsoever to satisfy your naive requests
> for
> proof paul. hang it up.
>
> bear
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
> Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
>

funny paul - this reads far more like a description of what you and
some of your fellow critics of TT do then what i have done.

your web page does seem to describe itself as being available to people
who might want to do a meta-analysis. here's a suggestion: put the data
for the project/paper up on the web site and we can all take a look at
what you consider to be publishable quality work. til then, as you have
done so many times, i am just gonna assume that your best, published
work is simply unjustifiable from an experimental design standpoint.

that is: i am going to assume that your work is 'unsupported' until you
prove to me that it is supported. sound familiar? it is your rejoinder
to TTPs....

now i have freely admitted to having been involved in far less rigorous
research even then your unsupported work on testosterone. As far as I
am concerned, until you prove the dubious quality of your work or admit
that it is no better, and in fact, far worse than much TT research, I
really think you ought to desist critiquing TT and people who are
trying to work on that subject. At least some people perceive some
benefit to TT - I am not at all sure what the advantages of
testosterone levels in the saliva of sports fans is supposed to mean?
Is this line of inquiry being pursued with my tax dollars?

try to soften up a bit paul. maybe if you admit that there is much you
do not know - someone will actually let you participate in research on
TT some day - isn't that what you really want?

bear
--- tt@onelist.com wrote:
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
>     GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
> Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
> forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free
> coupons!
>   <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 2 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in today's digest:
>
>       1. Re: Digest Number 299
>            From: bear <tc_spirit@...>
>       2. Re: Digest Number 299
>            From: pbern10 <pbern10@...>
>
>
>

>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

> Message: 2
>    Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:29:43 -0700
>    From: pbern10 <pbern10@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 299
>
> bear wrote on 12/16/99 6:33 AM:
>
> >You assert that i haven't the benefit of reading the 'real'
> >paper but somehow I suspect that your reading of TT literature is,
> at
> >best, superficial - the difference is that i have acknowledged
> reading
> >very little of your work - are you now willing to admit that your
> >perusal of the tt literature is lacking?
>
> I've never said differently.
>
> This is a favorite tactic of yours. You assert, or imply, that I've
> said
> something that I've never said (such as your assertion above that I
> claim
> extensive reading of TT literature) then proceed to knock over that
> statement. That (improper) form of argument is called 'straw man'
> because
> it creates a false object which is then easily attacked.
>
> With regards to your not reading my paper. All I've said is if you
> have a
> substantial criticism to make, the proper forum is the journal in
> which
> the paper was published, Physiology and Behavior, via a letter to the
>
> editor. If you chose to go that direction, I'll gladly send you a
> copy of
> the paper, just send me a land mail address to which I may send it.
> The
> web page admits in the first sentence that it is not the full paper
> and
> shouldn't be taken as such.
>
> Paul
>
>
>

> Message: 1
>    Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:33:13 -0800 (PST)
>    From: bear <tc_spirit@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 299
>
> paul:
>
> i have read your rebuttal. i don't think it will withstand critical
> inquiry. my point is simply this: when you design studies they do not
> meet the criteria you expect from others. given that very simple fact
> i
> think it is hypocritical for you to demand a higher standard from
> other
> people. You assert that i haven't the benefit of reading the 'real'
> paper but somehow I suspect that your reading of TT literature is, at
> best, superficial - the difference is that i have acknowledged
> reading
> very little of your work - are you now willing to admit that your
> perusal of the tt literature is lacking? conducting scientific
> inquiry
> is difficult not easy. it behooves all of us to keep in mind that
> there
> is much work that goes on that we are not privy to. at the same time,
> it also behooves us to avoid labeling other people and fields of
> inquiry as fraudulent simply because we do not really understand
> them.
>
> nobody has any obligation whatsoever to satisfy your naive requests
> for
> proof paul. hang it up.
>
> bear
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
> Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
>