Skip to main content

A dark day for Huddersfield

As someone brought up in one of the pennine towns, I know Huddersfield reasonably well and have always thought of it as, frankly, a bit of dump. So I was pleasantly surprised a couple of years ago when I accompanied one of my daughters on a visit as a potential student at the University of Huddersfield. Its compact campus is a really well designed, pleasant environment. And, I mean, it has Patrick Stewart as Chancellor!

However I am decidedly concerned about a press release I received from them. It tells us 'Following a pilot study in Huddersfield, researchers feel that Reiki, as a complementary therapy, should be available to cancer sufferers on the NHS.' Hmm.

Here's what I say about reiki (I can't see why it deserves a capital letter) in Science for Life:
Like acupuncture, reiki claims to use energies unknown and unde- tectable to science in its cures, but where acupuncture depends on the inner human energy of ch’i, reiki, which was devised in Japan in the early years of the 20th century, makes use of something more like ‘the Force’ in Star Wars – an external universal energy which is supposed to be channelled by the healer’s hands into the body of the person being treated.
     The only positive trials of reiki seem to be those where no controls were imposed – the treatment was not compared with a placebo, and so a natural sense of wellbeing resulted from a belief in its effectiveness. Although reiki can do no harm, there is always the danger if it is used instead of a functional treatment in the case of serious illness that the individual’s health will get worse as a result of not being properly treated.
     If you want a placebo-based treatment, over-the-counter home- opathy is a cheaper way to go.
 Now to be fair to Huddersfield, they aren't claiming reiki can cure cancer (this would be illegal), but they are saying that it can make sufferers feel better. Dr Serena McCluskey, who is a Senior Research Fellow in the University’s Centre for Applied Psychological and Health Research said 'Acupuncture and other techniques that were regarded as quite unorthodox are prescribed on the NHS, so we just thought that more research on Reiki was needed. We are not suggesting that we can establish scientific effectiveness, but we are adding to the body of evidence for the quality of life benefits it has for women with cancer.'

Hmm again. The research was done by D McCluskey and an-ex colleague Dr Maxine Stead, who is a 'Reiki master' and is 'now the owner of a holistic health spa in Huddersfield'. Triple hmm. No possibilities of vested interests here, then.

What did the research consist of? Over the course of a year, the researchers conducted detailed interviews with ten women who had received reiki therapy. They 'discovered benefits such as a release of emotional strain, “a clearing of the mind from cancer” and feelings of inner peace and relaxation.'

So it's a tiny trial using subjective interviews and they discovered, surprise, surprise, that when these patients received a lot of attention they felt better in themselves. But this is a classic placebo reaction. There was no attempt here to control the trial. No blinding. No attempt to compare with and without reiki. No suggestion that the same effects could be done without paying the fees of 'Reiki masters' by buying some ten-a-penny sugar pills. No consideration of the morality of placebo-as-treatment. (It may be justified, but it at least needs considering, and if it is to be done, it should be low cost and avoid encouraging misunderstanding of science.)

Frankly, this isn't science at all, it's effectively advertising for an alternative therapy. And the University of Huddersfield has seriously declined in my estimation.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou