Hopi indians

Hi Kaspa

I don't do that many candlings these days so not too bothered about the origin. Good for you though for being honest and not jumping on the hyped up bandwagon - whether or not ear candling was Hopi inspired.

If I ever discuss ear candling to someone I just call it ear candling, eventhough my cert say Hopi. I personally don't think what you are proposing to be unethical. In fact you are being very ethical if it's true that the Hopi people doesn't want to be associated with it.

Candles is a silly term as it can put people off. Thermal Auricular Therapy is a more precise descriptor. Must state that "Thermo Auricular Therapy" is a copyrighted term, but Thermal Auricular Therapy is OK.

Best Wishes

RP

I too heard that Hopi Indians were not really associated with the practice, but I'm not sure how true or false that is.

I did however understand that 'officially' and for insurance purposes, it must be referred to as Thermal Auricular Therapy and not Hopi Ear Candling.

😉

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I agree with the others, I too advertise as Thermal Auricular Therapy (Ear Candling), if the treatment helps then carry on 🙂

Hi Elz

On my insurance policy it states "Hopi Ear Candling".

Best Wishes

RP

I guess it must depend on the insurance company. 😉

Thank you so much for your replies, will change my advertising and see what happens.
Blessings to all
Kaspa
xx

I think JoJo has the right idea, call it "Thermal Auricular Therapy (Ear Candling)" so people recognise it and it takes the association away from the Hopi Indians.

Candles are not part of any Native American culture. Native Americans of old did not make or use candles.

That we have established 🙂

I love doing this treatment and have had a lot of excellent results from it but hate to think that I am using the Hopi Indians name wrongly. Would I be ok to just market it as ear candling even though it says Hopi on my certificate?

The source of the quote is a [url]Now Magazine (Canada) article from 2005[/url]. Vanessa Charles, who is public relations officer for the "Hopi Tribal Council", has explicity refuted the claim that "Hopi Ear Candling" is anything to do with them.

I would hope anyone who offers this therapy is aware of the [url]latest clinical research[/url] which demonstrates that there is no evidence of any benefits, but some evidence of serious (even fatal) injuries associated with the practice.

The source of the quote is a [url]Now Magazine (Canada) article from 2005[/url]. Vanessa Charles, who is public relations officer for the "Hopi Tribal Council", has explicity refuted the claim that "Hopi Ear Candling" is anything to do with them.

What is Now Magazine ?? Womans mag or a medical one ?

I would hope anyone who offers this therapy is aware of the [url]latest clinical research[/url]which demonstrates that there is no evidence of any benefits, but some evidence of serious (even fatal) injuries associated with the practice.

Certainly keeps my sinus probs at bay 🙂

Yes, there are injuries from using ear candles. This however is due to a) poor quality candles that drip wax and b) people using them who don't know what they're doing, or who are trying to self administer the treatment. There are easily more injuries take place in the home than in the use of ear candles, and I'm sure more accidents and injury caused by the slip of a surgeons hand.

You have to keep things in proportion. Yes, in the wrong hands or without adequate training they can cause injury, but so can anything. You have to remember things like the "latest clinical research" that showed things like Seroxat being a completely safe antidepressant, only for it to be taken off the shelves after it was shown to be causing worse depression and even increased suicide rates in some people. We can't just go by what medical science says with it's peer reviews and large budegets from pharmaceutical companies. Everything can be dangerous and everyone can make mistakes.

I personally prefer to find things out from experience (and yes I was a skeptic about a lot of things myself in the past). I've tried Ear Candles for myself and on others (with adequate training I might add 😉 ) and everyone has found benefit from them, including myself. Ok, it's not double blind tested, it's not documented, but it worked for us, no injury or damage done, and that's what matters.

And yes, I've gone off and already read the information regarding the Hopi council requesing Biosun to stop using the Hopi name. I've no problem with that myself.

😉

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Hi slw

The abstract you have quoted as evidence is just a reflection of Prof. Ernst's usual CAM -ve personal bias. But I do agree with the research of his that ear candling doesn't suck wax out of the ears and that no human ear wax has been found in in the candles. As for dangers and contraindications in the use of ear candling, there is many properly conducted training courses in the UK for therapists, and that insurance companies will insurance therapists for this therapy if the therapist uses EU certified ear candles with filters and the side of the hand is protected. Just because there may be substandard candles available and silly people trying to do it themselves doesn't in itself signify that properly performed ear candling is dangerous. As if that the case, insurance companies wouldn't insurance it. Most insurance companies that I know of don't even charge an excess over other therapies such as reflexology, massage etc. Since insurance companies go by risk, the risk must therefore be pretty low!

As for effectiveness, like any therapy orthodox or complementary, it will work for some pathologies and individuals better than others.

As for for my own personal experience of receiving ear candle treatments, I have found the warming currents did improve sinus congestion, and also found that it was deeply relaxing. I can only describe this as if my autonomic nervous system was deeply relaxing. But as a skeptic you probably wouldn't except my anecdotal evidence. But if you willing to pay for me to go to a lab and hook me up to monitoring equipment while receiving an ear candling treatment to see how my nervous system responds, I'm up for it!

Best Wishes

RP

The abstract you have quoted as evidence is just a reflection of Prof. Ernst's usual CAM -ve personal bias.

That's a rather startling claim. What evidence can you provide to support it?

But if you willing to pay for me to go to a lab and hook me up to monitoring equipment while receiving an ear candling treatment to see how my nervous system responds, I'm up for it!

A clinical study with only one participant and no control group? Sorry, I'm not interested in funding that.

A clinical study with only one participant and no control group? Sorry, I'm not interested in funding that.

I'm sure you could get lots of volunteers willing to have free ear candling, you only have to ask. 😉

Hi SLW

I've been following Prof. Ernst's work for years and he is very CAM negative. He has an obvious agenda to stick the knife into the back of CAM.

As for my tongue-in-cheek suggest of monitoring, to be serious for a moment, RCT research was developed for drug trials. It has been mention in many a book, article, and in personal commuication with scentists that I have spoken to is that RCT is often an inadequate research methodology for testing CAM. Must mention that they weren't opposed to RCT, but considered it as one method amongst others.

Consider this: "clients" of us therapists like what we do, otherwise they wouldn't come back. It doesn't matter how much we do is "ritual", "placebo" or even "psycho-drama", the empirical fact that many people are helped by CAM even when NHS couldn't (and vice versa which I'm happy to acknowledge also).

You can be as mechanistic and reductionist as you like, but if people's quality of life is improved by both CAM or orthodox medicine, does it really matter which? Don't we as individuals have the right to choose the methods that we feel is appropriate to our needs? And that includes Thermal Auricular Therapy (Ear Candling)!

Best Wishes

RP

I've been following Prof. Ernst's work for years and he is very CAM negative. He has an obvious agenda to stick the knife into the back of CAM.

It has been mention in many a book, article, and in personal commuication with scentists that I have spoken to is that RCT is often an inadequate research methodology for testing CAM.

Consider this: "clients" of us therapists like what we do, otherwise they wouldn't come back.

Forgive me, RP. All I can see here is a collection of anecdotes. What is the actual evidence?

Regards, SLW

The source of the quote is a [url]Now Magazine (Canada) article from 2005[/url]. Vanessa Charles, who is public relations officer for the "Hopi Tribal Council", has explicity refuted the claim that "Hopi Ear Candling" is anything to do with them.

I would hope anyone who offers this therapy is aware of the [url]latest clinical research[/url] which demonstrates that there is no evidence of any benefits, but some evidence of serious (even fatal) injuries associated with the practice.

I would be very interested to know exactly which private organisation or company was involved in funding this clinical research by E Ernst, as universities only fund a small portion of it and rely on generous companies. I'm from a background in Life sciences and research and know that almost all research projects can be made to look in your favour if the "funder" so requests that. Results can be interpreted in a way that favours what someone wants. Cynical, yes - but it is the truth too.

I would be very interested to know exactly which private organisation or company was involved in funding this clinical research by E Ernst...

Why don't you email him, or [DLMURL="http://staff.pcmd.ac.uk/main.php?directory_alpha=E"]phone him[/DLMURL], and ask?

Hi SLW, it would take me too long to dug up the info and bang on peoples doors for it. Sorry I don't have a large library of information at my fingertips. It isn't my job. But luckily I did have a enquiring mind, broad education, and can read a research paper (including some of those written by Prof.Ernst). A lot of CAM research uses such a small numbers of participants that even if there is a statistically significant result, it will still be damned by the mainstream. Call this what you may, but since over the years have treated many research scientists and healthcare professionals (including MSc's, PhD's, MDs, nurses, physio's etc) never have they asked for evidence! Latest client I have taken on is a Dr of Clinical Psychology. Since I'm practising legally under commonlaw, why should I bother to listen to skeptics and their personal agendas?

General comment for all: You wouldn't expect a prof of engineering criterising motors that go around & around, or a prof of paleaonology believing in the creation myth & damning evolution, so why is the prof of CAM so damning of CAM? Is this some kind of twisted logic?

Best Wishes

RP

Now, I'm not having a personal attack on any individual, but I wish to look at the mindset the skeptic.

The problem is have with skepticism that rarily does it move forward the potential of the human mind and wellbeing. Just as bad is the CAM therapist who sticks their head in the ground and says it all to do with "energies". Both is as bad as each other. Wisdom without compassion is dry and withered. Compassion without wisdom is fluffy and woolly. Some where in between is the balance that takes humanity onwards on that journey known as life.

Oh dear gone off topic! Lol 🙂

Why don't you email him, or [DLMURL="http://staff.pcmd.ac.uk/main.php?directory_alpha=E"]phone him[/DLMURL], and ask?

slw:

That's the first thing I did after reading this thread, then put my few lines in. Will wait to hear back from him and will update when I do. Thanks for the contact info anyway, I'm sure someone else may find it useful if they've got any queries.

Call this what you may, but since over the years have treated many research scientists and healthcare professionals (including MSc's, PhD's, MDs, nurses, physio's etc) never have they asked for evidence!

I too treat many scientists from all fields, GPs, midwives, consultants and nurses (who keep coming back and recommend me to their friends/family) - and never has one brought up research with me either. A GP cannot tell their patients to try many of these things if there is no research to back it up, but that doesn't mean they can't try it for themselves. Also, a lot of scientists theories (physics in particular) is totally based on theory and possibilites without an actual proof or detailed research, but their theories are still considered.

And you're right, much of the CAM research uses low numbers of people so any results are always going to be quite statistically significant. However, in research they always say that any projects with so few participants shouldn't really be taken so seriously as it's not accurate enough. So when not in the favour of CAM it's all "I told you so", and when it is in the favour of CAM (again due to the low numbers) it's all "well there weren't really enough participants so not a complete research project anyway".

Hi C&C

Thanks for backing me up. But I have to admit that all the negative press on therapies such as homeopathy does make me think that it is a load of mumbo jumbo. The more work I do in CAM, the more I think that therapist's manner and attitude has an important part to play. Shame more scientists don't investigate this wonderful potential for influencing change, rather than damning and suppressing anything that doesn't conform to their paradigm.

Best Wishes

RP

Hi RP - you're welcome 🙂

As I said before, it is always possible to manipulate research statistics to be in the favour of whatever someone was initially out to prove in the first place. It's really about who will benefit most from the results (and who is funding it - are they really independent funders or not). Most research is only funded if it's from a university or if a large organisation requests it. It's very tough to get any real funding if you're an independent person or if there is even remotely a chance that the results will not be what someone wants. The big bucks comes from medical and pharmaceutical industries who know that positive CAM results will damage them. I've done lots of research through my previous degree (and then went into CAM) and have seen it all. Just always keep that in mind when reading any research papers.

I know many doctors who take a lot of research papers with a pinch of salt and have learned to read between the lines.

The more work I do in CAM, the more I think that therapist's manner and attitude has an important part to play.

I very much agree with this, and as a tutor this is something I am always driving into my students as much as possible. Professionalism should be high on all practitioner's lists.

Calm and Clear

Well, how gullable am I? I never doubted the story for a minute. I never believed tha that this therapy could work in the first place but went for the training after being asked be a client. I love doing it and have had some great results. I have to admit I am gutted that what I was told about the hopi tribe is a load of rubbish. Who on earth is so devious to make this whole thing up. I must find out what my trainers think about this - they must be aware of the falsehood of their claims. I am really shocked at the audacity of these people. Oh well, it's so easy to take advantage of people like me!