|
<< Table Of Contents (if not seen at left) 1.Cree's.Therapy 2.Distant.Healing 3.Client.Feedback 4.Fees.&.Policies 5.Client.Signature 6.How.to.Contact 7.How.to.Support |
…………………………………………. |
||
|
.
.
.
.
.
.
<<. |
.Energy Field Therapy practiced by
Lorenzo Cree, a gifted subtle-energy healer practicing in studios and at-distance worldwide
Page 7.
“When examining normal science … we shall … describe that research as a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education.”
(This is a page of
non-essential information. It is intended only for persons who would like to
support research of Cree’s work.) MONETARY SUPPORT OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
BACKGROUND OF THE NEED: Cree has been selected three times as a participating healer in National Institutes of Health (NIH) research (see this site’s Page 2: Distant Healing). This research was designed by the highly esteemed scientist Elisabeth Targ, M.D. and is conducted through the prestigious California Pacific Medical Center as part of the NIH’s National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
Now, Cree would like to see some very similar research meeting two criteria:
(1) It would use his healing therapy alone, or together with that of other healers who have been stringently screened—along with Cree himself—for ability/effectiveness. (Alternatively, it could simply be a study to challenge and precisely define the skill levels of Cree, or of each member of a group including Cree.)
(2) This would be research conducted jointly by researchers sympathetic with the concept of subtle-energy healing working together with scientists highly skeptical of it. Or, tandem parallel studies could be done, each using the same healer(s)—one by the skeptical and one by the sympathetic scientists—with oversight and meta-review by a joint “sympathetic-and-skeptical” panel of scientists.
Reviewing the massive amount of research into subtle-energy/spiritual healing in the Western World, as collected and reviewed in the book “Spiritual Healing: Scientific Validation of a Healing Revolution” by Daniel J. Benor, MD, it can be seen that rigorous pre-screening of healer-participants for ability/effectiveness is a rarity. The issue has usually been glossed over. (The issue is generally far better addressed in the huge body of research into this area in China.) In multiple-healer studies in which end-result data are broken down by healer, great variance in effectiveness of healers is shown, begging the questions of which levels of abilities are being tested, and what levels are there?
There is a need for studies to determine these levels, and then for studies that work with healers screened for specific levels of effectiveness. (Time and again, it has been seen in study results, that well known healers who have written popular books and/or been the subject of prime time movies, are not necessarily the most effective—sometimes far from it! Nor are all persons trained and certified by popular healing schools and systems necessarily of high effectiveness.)
The public is accustomed to medical research study results coming out weekly that contradict that of previous studies. Ever appearing are commentaries on specific studies pointing out their flaws, ambiguity, or highly limited value due to poor design. All too frequent are the studies felt by some reviewers to have cut corners on commonly accepted scientific protocol and rigor, in favor of the researchers’ prejudices, the funding sources’ agenda, or the financial survival of the research institutions. In such an environment, it is of particular importance that research into such a paradigm-shifting area as subtle-energy healing be largely impeccable and unassailable—unlike so much of the research reviewed in Benor’s Spiritual Healing, cited above.
Even Dr. Elisabeth Targ’s original
groundbreaking distant-healing research reported in the Western Journal of Medicine, v.
169, 1998—the research which led to Targ’s securing NIH
funding for larger follow-up studies in which Cree participated and
participates—has now been found to have departed from some commonly expected
rules of research protocol. This has been described in a Wired Magazine article (http://www.wired.com/
After Targ had just begun the study, targeting death rates for healer-treated vs. untreated AIDS patients, new drugs suddenly came into use which prevented early AIDS-related deaths, thus rendering the study meaningless. So she then “removed the blinds” from the patients’ files—in other words, she looked at them rather than keeping them hidden from herself till the end of the experiment—in order to look for other types of differences between the patients being healer-treated and the untreated patients. With patients’ names covered with black tape to keep patients’ identities “blind” from her, she and her co-managers looked for patterns of symptoms and wellness in the two groups of patients. They found important differences—the differences that were reported in the Journal at the studies conclusion. The catch is that by so proceeding, Targ and her colleagues changed the experiment from a “hypothesis-testing experiment” to an “exploratory, proof-of-priciple, or pilot study”. In derogatory terms, some scientists would call it a “fishing expedition”.
Although Targ and her team were not highly secretive about their activities, now it can be realized that they would have done better to have been blatantly open about their shift in procedure. Among the millions of degreed persons who refer to themselves as “scientists”, many are driven by prejudice and politics-of-money or cause (just as is the case among members of most other segments of society). Many have a prissy rather than deep understanding of science (and are not even likely to have read such primers on science as Thomas S. Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”). Some of their voices have been raised claiming that Targ’s early study is invalidated by the discovery of her mid-study shift in focus.
MONETARILY SUPPORTING
RESEARCH WHICH CREE PROPOSES:
A copy of your letter will be forwarded to appropriate high-level medical school and research-institution staff members who are closely familiar with Cree and his work. When appreciable interest can be seen to exist on the part of potential contributors, these professionals will contact you and the other potential contributors to discuss their proposed or considered research ideas—ideas that will have been spurred and encouraged by your indication of interest. Eventually, you will be invited to send another letter directly to them at their institution(s) stating whether you have interest in supporting such more-closely specified research.
Meanwhile, when your interest and intent, and perhaps that of others, is seen to exist, matching or supplemental institutional, foundational, and/or governmental grants will likely be pursued by highly experienced medical research grant-application writers who also are very familiar with Cree and his therapy. Eventually, timing will become crucial (due to the involvement of the institutional and/or governmental grantors which have time-deadlines): Both the medical research institution(s) on the one hand, and the would-be contributors and grantors on the other, will need to come into synchronization, giving one another firm and organized demonstrations of intent to proceed. The efforts will converge with funds being authorized by donors and grantors on the one hand, and signatures being given by the head of the medical research institution(s) on the other. 2000-2003 Lorenzo Cree - ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED. — Updated Dec. 30, 2002 — |
…. |
|
|
<< Table Of Contents (if not seen at left) 1.Cree's.Therapy 2.Distant.Healing 3.Client.Feedback 4.Fees.&.Policies 5.Client.Signature 6.How.to.Contact 7.How.to.Support |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
