What's the truth behind alternative therapies....
Have you ever seen a blind taste test? You know, a test where someone is given a glass of coca cola and told it's pepsi and vica versa. If they like coke, they say the pepsi is better and vica versa, not realising they have been tricked. What about when you can't tast there is rosemary in something and then when someone mentions that they put rosemary in, it's all you can taste now? How about being near someone who was ill and thinking, I hope I dont get ill, only to fall ill the next day? There's lots of examples of this, can you think of your own?
We all know the cliche of the placebo effect, people given sugar pills and told it is a medication, often show evidence that it was like they had taken the real medication? Again, there is lots of studies you can read for yourself. What you should take away from all this is that the mind is key.
Now, when you go to reiki, for example, and you experience something and maybe it helped you and someone who is supposedly in the know says, "Oh well, if you felt anything it's just the placebo effect so it's not real"; what do you think of that? I know a lot of people will think, "oh well if he/she says it's just the placebo then I guess it's not real so I shouldn't do it." At the very least, it won't work once you believe this assertion. But it did work, before the assertion. Isn't saying placebo just decribing the mechanism of how it works? Does it matter, then if it is the placebo? It's similar to saying "Oh well, that medication only worked because it acted on your bodies mechanisms." Isn't this what precription drugs do. Why does one thearpy, involving the mind, and the other, involving the body, have to be different; one false and the other true? Why can it only be material things and not mental things that have truth? Why, just because my mind did it, should I now avoid it and go with things that works for all minds? Could there be an argument that those things work (i.e. mainstream medication), also, because we all believe they work? They are stronger and clearer to the mind. You can show them to people. Alternative therapies are more subtle and so can't be seen or proven in the same way. But that doesn't mean they are not true. Why do we ignore the validity of the mind; especially the individual mind?
(Continues after advert...)
Furthermore, if it worked because of someone's mind, then why would you want to make it not work anymore by changing their minds? Because you know better? Because energy healing simply cannot work from what we understand by science? But what if not all things could be proven? What if there are some things that are so intangible, subtle, that they are a different kind of thing to the material world. With the scientific magnifying glass system only being able to see the material and what can be proven, wouldn't that system therefore miss a whole portion of reality? And yet it would also argue that it is the only with truth, as it's the only one who can show you things. But that involves others and takes away the individual, the ability of the individual to say what is true. "Oh well, it's just confirmation bias, placebo and so on..."
Yes, but it really really did work. When Osteopathy, doctors and more mainstream stuff didn't, reiki really worked for me. So clearly, even if it is just my mind, something is going on. It is therefore a crime to make someone believe that it is false, just the placebo, because then it won't work. It can't be right to do that so you can sell me something you "know" to be true.
It's also why if you go to any of the therapies on the list in the "Alternative Therapies?" article with an "I don't believe this" or "Let's see how true this is" mindset, it just won't work, 9 times out of 10. You have to believe in it, or at least have an open mind, for any of them to work. With this approach, yes they do work. Can we show it in a double blind scientific study? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it isn't true!
Liking, following and sharing is caring :) (mobile users scoll down...)