I was reading up on Reiki the other day and the science community generally writes it off as 'hokum' sold to the vulnerable by modern day snake oil salesmen. One interesting thing I did come upon though was a large study carried out here in Glasgow by the South Glasgow University Hospital NHS Trust on the effectiveness of Reiki for recovery on a large group of patients. They found that heart rate and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly in people who received 30 minutes of Reiki, but also decreased significantly in people who received a placebo intervention. There was no significant change in people who received 30 minutes of rest. The authors therefore concluded that it is "unlikely that the significant changes in both placebo and reiki groups are due to simply lying down and resting.". So the question I ask myself is 'If an alternative treatment although having no scientific basis of effectiveness, induces improved healing ( because the recipient uses it as a 'kick start' for the body to self heal ), does this make it a viable and acceptable treatment ( paid for by the taxpayer)?
