You found my old blog. Thanks for visiting! For my new writing, visit mikesententia.com.
Exciting results with the healing technique I developed to help Lisa sleep. A client has had insomnia for 4 years, typically getting 3-4 hours of sleep per night. In January, I used that same healing technique, and a few weeks ago she sent me this:
OMG. Update on the healing front. Get ready for some all caps joy:
I AM SLEEPING GREAT LATELY. It is so awesome. <3 <3 <3
I sleep nearly 7 1/2 hours almost every night and I freaking LOVE IT.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
This sparks a few thoughts:
- This could help a lot of people. So many people sleep poorly these days.
- This could be a great first offering for Healing Lab. More people suffer from poor sleep than from chronic joint pain or other conditions, and this is also different than what other healers offer, which is nice.
- Could I publish a study on this technique?
That last question isn’t, “Could someone publish a study about this technique?” It’s, “Could I publish it?” Run a small study, publish online, then collaborate with researchers to reproduce the results for journal publication.
If I do, I’d want it to be a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. That’s the gold standard. It’s also, sadly, rare in biofield healing studies.
Let’s review those terms:
Placebo-controlled: What if the active ingredient isn’t your healing technique, but your discussion with the client? To rule that out, you have the same discussion and pretend to do a healing session for everyone in the control group. The only difference should be whether you actually move energy or not.
Double-blind: What if I say the same words to both groups, but I’m excited for the real-healing subjects and monotone for the pretend-healing ones? No good. To rule that out, even the practitioner shouldn’t know whether the subject will be receiving the real healing technique or not.
Placebo-controlled is simple enough, and according to a 2009 meta-study, around half of all biofield studies use placebo control. An acupuncturist punctures inaccurately, a Reiki healer waves their hands but doesn’t channel energy. These studies usually provide evidence that real healing is more effective than placebo.
But notice the problem: That acupuncturist knows whether they’re giving real acupuncture. The Reiki healer knows she’s just waving her hands. What if they had an unconscious confidence in the healing conditions that they lacked in the placebo conditions?
I’d like to rule that out. So here’s my plan:
- Meet with the subject, discuss the healing technique.
- After answering their questions, touch their head to create the connections.
- Go into the other room, and only then flip a coin to determine if they’re in the healing or placebo group.
- Using those connections, while remaining in the other room, either do the healing technique or don’t. Either way, don’t talk with or see the subject. An assistant (who doesn’t know the result of that coin flip) thanks them and shows them out.
- To follow up, send a single email to everyone, all at the same time (bcc’ed), asking them to complete a survey. No difference in communication between subject and control.
How do I get subjects? I know lots of free thinkers who love science, who would probably be excited to give 20 minutes of their time for a double-blind placebo-controlled study, and receive a free healing session on top of it. And after the study, I’d do the healing technique for everyone in the control group, too.
My consulting contract is up this fall. I’ll aim for late 2015 or early 2016 for this study.
Comments: Do you see a way to make this study more robust without dramatically increasing the work? Or a way to simplify the procedure while keeping the same robustness? Please share in the comments.If you liked this post, consider visiting my current blog at mikesententia.com.