念力治疗是“骗局”？“反伪斗士”扯淡扯得没边际了。
直言了，2007·01·08。

网友推荐，看了人民网科技频道转载、北京科技报纸编制的“2006十大科技骗局”。里面的所谓第一大“骗局”，是念力治疗，譬如通过听音乐，达到一定治疗保健的效果。哈！念力治疗是个“骗局”？真是搞笑到家了。

美国政府NIH部门介绍：念力治疗，即Mind-body medicine/therapy。若追述它的历史，在中国和西方世界，可以追述到2000多年前。早在80年前，念力治疗就成为正经八百西医医院的医疗保健的一部分。当前，许多大学都有该专业及课题研究，不但包括西方传统方法、也包括中医气功和太极拳等传统方法。念力治疗的根本思想是充分尊重具体病人的个人知识和自我医疗保健能力，----正如那介绍文字引用所说的：“与其知道疾病，不如知道病人。”这话来自希波克拉底科斯，他是古希腊的医学家，西方医学历史上称之为“医药之父”。

把一个存在至少2000年、且目前中医和西医都有广泛应用的医学领域称为“骗局”，哈！搞笑也搞的太没边际了。一看那报道文字，赫赫，又是那个“反伪斗士”之一方舟子搀和。难怪呢，方舟子本来就不是学医的，对医学一窍不通是不奇怪的。此外，到目前为止，方某在美国16年来一直处于无业游民状态，其医疗保险都成问题、去不了啥正经八百的医院，当然也不知道美国医院应用念力治疗已经至少几十年了，----别说需要住院的那些病情了，就是您到登记注册的牙科大夫那里做做常规清理牙齿，您也能看到念力医疗设备、譬如听音乐的设备（为医学目的，而并非为娱乐目的）。

北京科技报编制的“念力治疗是‘骗局’”的唯一理由，就是搞那东西的当事人是个搞艺术的，不是学医学的，且没有足够临床实验证据。哈哈哈！荒唐到家的指控依据。首先呢，念力治疗带有“交叉”性质，使用艺术手段（甚至请艺术家参与）是少不了的，譬如听音乐和看图案的手段，就需要艺术或艺术家。北京科技报那依据说明他们对此是愚昧无知。

其次，当事人没有足够专业训练和没有足够临床实验，根本就不能作为把一门医学科学称为“骗局”的根据，---道理忒简单：它们属于不同的范畴的问题。不然的话，赫赫，一位西医医生尝试汽车设计，没专业训练和没足够工程实验，也可以说汽车工业是“骗局”了、也可以说西医的人都是搞“骗局”的了？哈！扯淡到家么。仅此而言就可看到，喜欢搞指控的那些记者编辑和“反伪斗士”们经常拿“逻辑”吓人，可他们自己呢，哈哈哈！连逻辑学的最基本知识“范畴”都不懂。

最后呢，那些记者编辑和“反伪斗士”是自打耳光的：您说别人没医学学位尝试医学就是“骗局”，嘿嘿，您几个有那学位吗？一个都没有。如此说来，那也可以说您几个是“骗局”了，哈哈哈！那些人自打耳光的搞笑是咋来的？赫赫，很明显：凡是他们自己不懂或不知道的东西，就都是“骗局”和“伪科学”，----那是典型的自大狂病态心理的表现。

人民网是中央级官方媒体，可它的科技频道却经常发表些垃圾烂货。要说“骗局”，哈！象人民网科技频道那样做，把一个对中医西医都是一窍不通、甚至连去正经医院都可能因游民身份而难以实现的居美游民，吹成“科学界”“打假人士”，而把美国政府和成百上千科技学术机构及人员的东西当“骗局”指控，那才是个地地道道的“骗局”呢！嘿嘿，如此下去，您还叫个啥“媒体权威”？还是叫个“搞笑权威”吧，----读者闲得发慌和想找些搞笑逗闷儿，就去访问人民网科技频道。

好了，咱就不多说了，下面是美国政府NIH的介绍原文，请您自己看看吧，----那是为公民基础知识所做的基本介绍。而那些记者编辑和“反伪斗士”们呢，连公民基础知识都没有，也难怪他们搞笑扯淡是没边没际了。

附：美国政府NIH关于“念力治疗”的基础知识介绍：
（这里是部分摘录。要看全文，请用地址连接吧。）

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/mindbody.htm
Mind-Body Medicine: An Overview。

Introduction

Mind-body medicine focuses on the interactions among the brain, mind, body, and behavior, and the powerful ways in which emotional, mental, social, spiritual, and behavioral factors can directly affect health. It regards as fundamental an approach that respects and enhances each person's capacity for self-knowledge and self-care, and it emphasizes techniques that are grounded in this approach.

Definition of Scope of Field

Mind-body medicine typically focuses on intervention strategies that are thought to promote health, such as relaxation, hypnosis, visual imagery, meditation, yoga, biofeedback, tai chi, qi gong, cognitive-behavioral therapies, group support, autogenic training, and spirituality.a The field views illness as an opportunity for personal growth and transformation, and health care providers as catalysts and guides in this process.

aCertain mind-body intervention strategies listed here, such as group support for cancer survivors, are well integrated into conventional care and, while still considered mind-body interventions, are not considered to be complementary and alternative medicine.

Mind-body interventions constitute a major portion of the overall use of CAM by the public. In 2002, five relaxation techniques and imagery, biofeedback, and hypnosis, taken together, were used by more than 30 percent of the adult U.S. population. Prayer was used by more than 50 percent of the population.1

Background

The concept that the mind is important in the treatment of illness is integral to the healing approaches of traditional Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine, dating back more than 2,000 years. It was also noted by Hippocrates, who recognized the moral and spiritual aspects of healing, and believed that treatment could occur only with consideration of attitude, environmental influences, and natural remedies (ca. 400 B.C.). While this integrated approach was maintained in traditional healing systems in the East, developments in the Western world by the 16th and 17th centuries led to a separation of human spiritual or emotional dimensions from the physical body. This separation began with the redirection of science, during the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras, to the purpose of enhancing humankind's control over nature. Technological advances (e.g., microscopy, the stethoscope, the blood pressure cuff, and refined surgical techniques) demonstrated a cellular world that seemed far apart from the world of belief and emotion. The discovery of bacteria and, later, antibiotics further dispelled the notion of belief influencing health. Fixing or curing an illness became a matter of science (i.e., technology) and took precedence over, not a place beside, healing of the soul. As medicine separated the mind and the body, scientists of the mind (neurologists) formulated concepts, such as the unconscious, emotional impulses, and cognitive delusions, that solidified the perception that diseases of the mind were not "real," that is, not based in physiology and biochemistry.

In the 1920s, Walter Cannon's work revealed the direct relationship between stress and neuroendocrine responses in animals.2 Coining the phrase "fight or flight," Cannon described the primitive reflexes of sympathetic and adrenal activation in response to perceived danger and other environmental pressures (e.g., cold, heat). Hans Selye further defined the deleterious effects of stress and distress on health.3 At the same time, technological advances in medicine that could identify specific pathological changes, and new discoveries in pharmaceuticals, were occurring at a very rapid pace. The disease-based model, the search for a specific pathology, and the identification of external cures were paramount, even in psychiatry.

During World War II, the importance of belief reentered the web of health care. On the beaches of Anzio, morphine for the wounded soldiers was in short supply, and Henry Beecher, M.D., discovered that much of the pain could be controlled by saline injections. He coined the term "placebo effect," and his subsequent research showed that up to 35 percent of a therapeutic response to any medical treatment could be the result of belief.4 Investigation into the placebo effect and debate about it are ongoing.

Since the 1960s, mind-body interactions have become an extensively researched field. The evidence for benefits for certain indications from biofeedback, cognitive-behavioral interventions, and hypnosis is quite good, while there is emerging evidence regarding their physiological effects. Less research supports the use of CAM approaches like meditation and yoga. The following is a summary of relevant studies.

Mind-Body Interventions and Disease Outcomes

Over the past 20 years, mind-body medicine has provided considerable evidence that psychological factors can play a substantive role in the development and progression of coronary artery disease. There is evidence that mind-body interventions can be effective in the treatment of coronary artery disease, enhancing the effect of standard cardiac rehabilitation in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac event recurrences for up to 2 years.5

Mind-body interventions have also been applied to various types of pain. Clinical trials indicate that these interventions may be a particularly effective adjunct in the management of arthritis, with reductions in pain maintained for up to 4 years and reductions in the number of physician visits.6 When applied to more general acute and chronic pain management, headache, and low-back pain, mind-body interventions show some evidence of effects, although results vary based on the patient population and type of intervention studied.7

Evidence from multiple studies with various types of cancer patients suggests that mind-body interventions can improve mood, quality of life, and coping, as well as ameliorate disease- and treatment-related symptoms, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and pain.8 Some studies have suggested that mind-body interventions can alter various immune parameters, but it is unclear whether these alterations are of sufficient magnitude to have an impact on disease progression or prognosis.9,10。
（后略）。
###
=======================