Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 140
the editors also give themselves a second chance to be red-faced over their naiveté and
laxness as investigators, when they reprint their own critique of the pro-TT burn study at
the University of Alabama at Birmingham. They lambaste the researchers at length for a
fraudulent ―final report‖ to the Defense Department, when it turned out Scheiber and Selby
had read only a two-page final progress report from UAB—the actual Final Report had none
of deficiencies they alleged. An article on the ethics of TT and its practitioners is weakly
argued and unsatisfying. And all of these have appeared before in print, so there is nothing
new in any of this.
The scientific literature reviews sprinkled around the book are old and uneven. One is a
reprint from 1984 and covers little of the work that is cited by proponents, though it does a
reasonably good job of dismissing Krieger‘s early reports. Another summary is by a
prominent TT proponent who concludes from it that TT ―has emerged as a specialized
example of the therapeutic use of touch in nursing practice.‖ (As has been noted before, TT
involves no touch at all.) The review of ―recent research‖ consists almost entirely of
critiques of two TT-favorable studies (one of them the UAB burn study) that also happen to
appear in the book.
The book‘s arbitrary organization, rudderless editing, and opportunistic selectivity, all mean
that it doesn‘t work as a source-book of significant publications in the field. The lack of an
index ensures that it is unusable as a reference work as well. The choice of what was
reprinted seems dictated by what Prometheus could get permission to reprint. None of the
reprints here are of the first importance to the history, evolution, practice, or criticism of TT.
Nothing by Krieger or Kunz appears in the book. Indeed, none of the seminal papers or
dissertations that molded TT‘s rise are reprinted, nor are those most cited by proponents.
(Closest is the wound-healing study by the shadowy Daniel Wirth, but this is offset by the
failure to reprint that author‘s own disclaimers on this research, after his failure to
consistently replicate his initial results.) The editors couldn‘t get permission to reprint the
famous JAMA study, so they printed their own rather crude synopsis of it. (With obvious
angst over that denial, they sprinkle the book with all sorts of criticisms of the study that
leaves rational readers shaking their heads—do these editors really think that a 10-year-old
could influence (psychically?) a coin-flip? Or that Emily should not have been listed as an
author of the report on her own experiment? Or that Linda compromised her objectivity by
cracking O.J. Simpson jokes? There is a lot more in this vein.) Meanwhile, the appendices
are for the most part copies of utterly insignificant correspondence and reports like so
much else in this book, the reason for their inclusion is opaque. The entire stew is
presented in no particular order—chronological, epistomological, or any other apparent
basis. The book ends just by stopping—no summaries, no conclusions, no apologies.
The subject of Therapeutic Touch is pretty wild and wacky, but the published end product is
pedantically pointless and mind-numbingly dull. There was no discernible value for the
publisher wasting an ISBN on it, much less printing it. (But then there was likewise none
for CSICOP/Prometheus to publish LSD-culter Arthur Janov‘s ravings, which they put out at
about the same time as this one.) Is their medical editor out to lunch these days? Or
maybe the formerly skeptical publishing house has been touched by one of Krieger‘s ―angels
of compassion‖ and is trying to resurrect the brain-dead.
References
Nurse Healers-Professional Associates. A special way of caring in this time of crisis.
http://www.therapeutic-touch.org/Crisis/2/med_pray_hope.htm. Accessed 1 Dec 2001.
Rosa, Linda A. Therapeutic Touch: skeptics in hand-to-hand combat over the latest New Age
health fad. Skeptic. Fall 1994, 3(1):40-4.
Krieger, Dolores. Therapeutic Touch: the imprimatur of nursing. American Journal of
Nursing. May 1975, 75(5):784-787.
the editors also give themselves a second chance to be red-faced over their naiveté and
laxness as investigators, when they reprint their own critique of the pro-TT burn study at
the University of Alabama at Birmingham. They lambaste the researchers at length for a
fraudulent ―final report‖ to the Defense Department, when it turned out Scheiber and Selby
had read only a two-page final progress report from UAB—the actual Final Report had none
of deficiencies they alleged. An article on the ethics of TT and its practitioners is weakly
argued and unsatisfying. And all of these have appeared before in print, so there is nothing
new in any of this.
The scientific literature reviews sprinkled around the book are old and uneven. One is a
reprint from 1984 and covers little of the work that is cited by proponents, though it does a
reasonably good job of dismissing Krieger‘s early reports. Another summary is by a
prominent TT proponent who concludes from it that TT ―has emerged as a specialized
example of the therapeutic use of touch in nursing practice.‖ (As has been noted before, TT
involves no touch at all.) The review of ―recent research‖ consists almost entirely of
critiques of two TT-favorable studies (one of them the UAB burn study) that also happen to
appear in the book.
The book‘s arbitrary organization, rudderless editing, and opportunistic selectivity, all mean
that it doesn‘t work as a source-book of significant publications in the field. The lack of an
index ensures that it is unusable as a reference work as well. The choice of what was
reprinted seems dictated by what Prometheus could get permission to reprint. None of the
reprints here are of the first importance to the history, evolution, practice, or criticism of TT.
Nothing by Krieger or Kunz appears in the book. Indeed, none of the seminal papers or
dissertations that molded TT‘s rise are reprinted, nor are those most cited by proponents.
(Closest is the wound-healing study by the shadowy Daniel Wirth, but this is offset by the
failure to reprint that author‘s own disclaimers on this research, after his failure to
consistently replicate his initial results.) The editors couldn‘t get permission to reprint the
famous JAMA study, so they printed their own rather crude synopsis of it. (With obvious
angst over that denial, they sprinkle the book with all sorts of criticisms of the study that
leaves rational readers shaking their heads—do these editors really think that a 10-year-old
could influence (psychically?) a coin-flip? Or that Emily should not have been listed as an
author of the report on her own experiment? Or that Linda compromised her objectivity by
cracking O.J. Simpson jokes? There is a lot more in this vein.) Meanwhile, the appendices
are for the most part copies of utterly insignificant correspondence and reports like so
much else in this book, the reason for their inclusion is opaque. The entire stew is
presented in no particular order—chronological, epistomological, or any other apparent
basis. The book ends just by stopping—no summaries, no conclusions, no apologies.
The subject of Therapeutic Touch is pretty wild and wacky, but the published end product is
pedantically pointless and mind-numbingly dull. There was no discernible value for the
publisher wasting an ISBN on it, much less printing it. (But then there was likewise none
for CSICOP/Prometheus to publish LSD-culter Arthur Janov‘s ravings, which they put out at
about the same time as this one.) Is their medical editor out to lunch these days? Or
maybe the formerly skeptical publishing house has been touched by one of Krieger‘s ―angels
of compassion‖ and is trying to resurrect the brain-dead.
References
Nurse Healers-Professional Associates. A special way of caring in this time of crisis.
http://www.therapeutic-touch.org/Crisis/2/med_pray_hope.htm. Accessed 1 Dec 2001.
Rosa, Linda A. Therapeutic Touch: skeptics in hand-to-hand combat over the latest New Age
health fad. Skeptic. Fall 1994, 3(1):40-4.
Krieger, Dolores. Therapeutic Touch: the imprimatur of nursing. American Journal of
Nursing. May 1975, 75(5):784-787.
