3 edited body
source | link

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's challengedchannelled from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients (2003)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's challenged from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients (2003)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's channelled from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients (2003)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.

2 edited body
source | link

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's challenged from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al [A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients] (2003)(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392403003348A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients (2003)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's challenged from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al [A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients] (2003)(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392403003348)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's challenged from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients (2003)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.

1
source | link

Reiki is a framework that the Japanese Buddhist Mikao Usui developed in 1922. In Mikau Usui own account he didn't find it through empiric investigation but says that the Reiki methology came as a vision to him.

In basic Reiki a practioner puts his hands on a patient and then visualizes specific symbols. Those symbols are then believed to create qi flow into the patient. Qi that's not supposed to come out of the energy of the practioner but that's challenged from a higher source.

Reiki teachers generally proclaim that they either practice Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui or the practice it intuitively. There's no systematized empiric process that evolved the field of Reiki. That means that it might be an art but it isn't a science.

Mikau Usui taught Reiki in three stages. The first stage is supposed to allow the practioner to do basic hands on treatment. The second stage supposedly give the ability for distance treatments. The third stage is about the ability to teach Reiki itself to other people and initiate them into the usage of the symbols.

Mikao Usui itself didn't talk about auras to the extend that you find today Reiki practioners who talk about auras it's because in modern New Age concepts blend together.

After being clear that the Reiki isn't a field that focuses on scientific progress the next question is whether it works.

There are positive trials of Reiki like Olson et al [A phase II trial of reiki for the management of pain in advanced cancer patients] (2003)(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392403003348)

On the other hand there's not enough evidence for meta-analyses to conlclude whether or not it's effective.

Lee's at al (2008) comes to that conlucion in Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

A more recent Cochrane analysis that focuses on the effect of Reiki on anxiety and depression also comes to the conclusion:

This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression.