All points well taken. I certainly agree that there are problems with trying to adhere to EBT as the field and movement towards EBT is pretty new, so specifically, there is a simple lack of EB treatments for many presentations, but there are some. Further, the validity of the diagnostic categories themselves, problems with applying protocols developed on "pure" cases to real world cases, and for numerous other reasons, I recognize that the position currently has its limitations. But I think it is still an important movement within the field, and is something that should ultimately be embraced because it means better, more refined treatment, and accountability to ensure that effective, efficient treatments are utilized when available. To me, its an ethical issue. You don't want to waste peoples time, money, or prolong distress in any way, and the best way to make sure your not doing those things is to utilize treatments and strategies shown to be the most effective through some systematic demonstration of its efficacy.

I've seen statements to the effect of 'just because there is no evidence or plausable mechanism by which an intervention might work, doesn't mean it doesn't work.' This is absolutely the case, and I think this is the scientifically minded, skeptical viewpoints logical extension. We can't prove much of anything officially. However, we can talk about probability and whats reasonable. So yes, Reiki and other energy field therapies might work in some way despite their strange theoretical claims. We must consider probability though. Their claims fly in the face of even the most fundamental, basic principles of physics and physiology, which counts as significant evidence against said hypothesis, that Raiki works beyond placebo. It follows that its effectiveness as a treatment is therefore very, very unlikely, though remotely possible. I would ask, is this not the process you go through to make other important life decisions? How do you decide what to do with your life savings? Its based upon probability, and you choose the approach that you think is most likely to work based upon best evidence, and not the approach that fly's in the face of that evidence. This is the difference between investing in a 401k, and depositing your money for safe keeping the bank account of a deposed nigerian prince, who promises you a threefold return on your investment. Possible, but we should know better. Why throw common sense out the window when it comes to treatment if we refuse to do so with any other aspect of our lives?

Further, while visiting a Reiki specialists is not likely to harm you, and may very well be relaxing, you could receive the same benefits from visiting a physical therapist or plain old masseuse. By choosing the Reiki practitioner, your helping to fund a field that is, to be a bit forward, fraudulent and irresponsible. But that's just how I see it. I think it is relevant how your choices impact society at large. If people think otherwise though, I'm all ears. I'd love to be convinced otherwise and am genuinely open to other evidence.