Energy medicine or energy healing is a branch of alternative medicine that holds that healing can be transferred to people looking for help using different methods, such as distance, hands-on and hands-off.
Energy therapy is largely non-denominational.
Therefore, practitioners do not require an individual's religious faith in order to initiate a cure.
Nevertheless, early reviews initiated by scientific literature recommended further research on energy therapy.
The basis of treatment has been criticized and research findings and reviews supporting the practice criticized for having methodological flaws.
According to recent studies, energy therapy is considered at best to offer comfort.
At worst, the therapy takes money away from people struggling with serious medical conditions; patients who require urgent conventional medicine.
· Commentaries History provides records of practitioners who claim energy therapy works by helping people heal, even as the concept of electricity and magnetism continue to inspire New Age movement writers.
Today, thousands of devices are being employed to facilitate healing, such as putative and veritable energy.
Nevertheless, some of the devices used have been banned, many of which are considered dangerous or illegal.
Therefore, they are marketed with unproven or false claims.
Furthermore, various commentaries caution against impaired 'critical thinking', which could lead to involvement in cults without being consciously aware.
In such circumstances, professional intervention of psychological support is recommended to avert mental ill health and make sure recovery.
· Distant healing A review on 23 cases of distant healing performed in 2000 did not give a definitive conclusion, as a result of methodological shortcomings of most studies.
The study revealed that although proponents of energy medicine indicate the method is effective in cancer care, the evidence is conflicting.
Furthermore, methodological limitations prevented definite conclusions.
The studies sought to promote distance healing as a support therapy, as opposed to an alternative to contemporary therapies.
In fact, more recent studies have moved the load of evidence of "distant healing being more than placebo" to "distance healing generating adverse effects".
· Contact healing Positive result findings published in 1995 recommended the concept of energy therapy into healthcare programs.
However, in 2001, a random clinical trial performed on 120 patients suffering with chronic pain assigned to "simulated healers" could not proof the efficacy of face-to-face or distance healing.
Furthermore, a systematic review on the touch therapy published in 2008 concluded the reviews had major shortcomings, including few studies and inadequate data.
Therefore, because of insufficient data, the success of touch therapy cannot be determined conclusively.
Energy therapy is largely non-denominational.
Therefore, practitioners do not require an individual's religious faith in order to initiate a cure.
Nevertheless, early reviews initiated by scientific literature recommended further research on energy therapy.
The basis of treatment has been criticized and research findings and reviews supporting the practice criticized for having methodological flaws.
According to recent studies, energy therapy is considered at best to offer comfort.
At worst, the therapy takes money away from people struggling with serious medical conditions; patients who require urgent conventional medicine.
· Commentaries History provides records of practitioners who claim energy therapy works by helping people heal, even as the concept of electricity and magnetism continue to inspire New Age movement writers.
Today, thousands of devices are being employed to facilitate healing, such as putative and veritable energy.
Nevertheless, some of the devices used have been banned, many of which are considered dangerous or illegal.
Therefore, they are marketed with unproven or false claims.
Furthermore, various commentaries caution against impaired 'critical thinking', which could lead to involvement in cults without being consciously aware.
In such circumstances, professional intervention of psychological support is recommended to avert mental ill health and make sure recovery.
· Distant healing A review on 23 cases of distant healing performed in 2000 did not give a definitive conclusion, as a result of methodological shortcomings of most studies.
The study revealed that although proponents of energy medicine indicate the method is effective in cancer care, the evidence is conflicting.
Furthermore, methodological limitations prevented definite conclusions.
The studies sought to promote distance healing as a support therapy, as opposed to an alternative to contemporary therapies.
In fact, more recent studies have moved the load of evidence of "distant healing being more than placebo" to "distance healing generating adverse effects".
· Contact healing Positive result findings published in 1995 recommended the concept of energy therapy into healthcare programs.
However, in 2001, a random clinical trial performed on 120 patients suffering with chronic pain assigned to "simulated healers" could not proof the efficacy of face-to-face or distance healing.
Furthermore, a systematic review on the touch therapy published in 2008 concluded the reviews had major shortcomings, including few studies and inadequate data.
Therefore, because of insufficient data, the success of touch therapy cannot be determined conclusively.