Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Rolci

Indisputable Evidence for Mind over Matter

174 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

CuriousRey

The placebo effect. How does it work again? Don't tell me. I'll just take an Aspirin that the doc and the adverts have managed to convince me will work and I believed them. (Like I have ever or will ever pay for something like that, let alone ingest one. I'll leave that to you. Cheers.)

Painkillers are just as big (if not bigger) of a scam as chemo and radio therapy. They do NO MORE than placebos. (Makes you wonder how much of their effectiveness comes from the placebo effect then?)

I know, I know. Here you go:

http://www.scienceda...40724094025.htm

If painkillers do no more good for an acute condition like this than placebo (effectively nothing at all) then how much difference do you expect for a simple headache? What a con!

After all that, when you say hypnosis, CA, NLP, and the rest are all "just" placebos, that's actually a compliment.

Painkillers do no more good for an acute condition than placebo? Have you ever taken a prescription painkiller or are you just making assumptions because I know many people with acute and chronic pain conditions that would suffer greatly if it wasn't for the medications they are prescribed, claiming that they are as effective as a placebo is a pretty asinine comment made by someone with obvious naivete on the subject.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

I would never had emotionally made-it in after-care "at home" serious pain reduction following surgery without prescribed, potent painkillers. Prescribed for only 7-10 days... no refills.

Opiates have a legitimate, doc approved place in chronic conditions, far out-weighing the placebo effect of non-painkillers, in my opinion.

EDIT: Sorry, it appears I'm somewhat "Off-Topic"

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

[/size]

It is indeed a fact. That possibilities exist is a fact. That it is possible that an undetected meteor might hit the Earth tomorrow is a fact. That your house might burn down next week is a fact. No evidence is needed, that's why it's called POSSIBILITY, and not CERTAINTY, you silly.

Nothing to do with the methods. People are expected to have brains and get a check-up first, and use alternative when all else fails, or the threat is minimal, like a headache. If some people are stupid, they get what is coming to them. It's called natural selection. Some people drink before they drive, and innocent people die. Do you see alcohols being banned? I don't. YOU ASSUME PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Not what I was asking. Read it again. Give them meds, tell them it's pain enhancer. Where's the effectiveness now?

Please provide peer-reviewed articles that prove they absolutely don't work. I haven't seen a single one.

And I'm still waiting for your peer-reviewed source for your silly claim that if you don't believe in hypnotherapy then it doesn't work. I've given you 3 references that it does. You're not doing to well so far. You need to start applying the same standards to yourself that you expect of me. Sources please.

You don't seem to understand the difference between fact and speculation. No surprise there. Possibilities are not a fact. That is a speculation. You also speculate about meteors. Not a fact. It's speculation. Again you speculate about a fire. Not a fact. You are silly and need to learn basic word meanings.

No. People such as yourself that are gullible are prone to being misdirected away from proven treatments. How are people going to understand the issues if they don't understand the meaning of simple words like fact. Your claim of personal responsibility is not as clear cut as you pretend it is. When others lure people away with false promises they are inserting themselves into the process and therefore affecting the outcome. A simple example of this is Madoff that convinced people to hand over their life savings and left them destitute.

You are completely out of touch with reality. To do what you suggests is fraud. It is criminal. It is immoral. It is unethical.

So now you argument is that you are uneducated. You didn't have to tell anyone that. Your argument is called an argument from personal ignorance. Are you kidding? Every single article you posted shows nothing more than the placebo effect. You've provided the evidence yourself.

You provided the evidence yourself that hypnosis only works if you believe in it. Don't you read the material you link to?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I would never had emotionally made-it in after-care "at home" serious pain reduction following surgery without prescribed, potent painkillers. Prescribed for only 7-10 days... no refills.

Opiates have a legitimate, doc approved place in chronic conditions, far out-weighing the placebo effect of non-painkillers, in my opinion.

EDIT: Sorry, it appears I'm somewhat "Off-Topic"

Not at all. Rolci has stated quite fervently that painkillers are a ripoff, too costly, ineffective, and so forth.

You are contradicting Rolci's inference which is based on a single painkiller that was not effective in a single setting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

[/size]

It is indeed a fact.

THEN PROVE IT. Provide evidence. That's all it takes.

And what's with the color change in your texts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

The "placebo-effect" is well known amongst the professional medical community. It IS real. And somewhat amazing, to be sure.

However, the mechanism behind it is very poorly understood, and what's more, many people do not respond to it. Some, yes, many others, no.

With that said, as we all know "placebo's" are commonly used in professional clinical trials(double-blind... neither the patient or the doctor knows which is which) to determine a biological and statistical efficacy of a new drug. Only the higher end doctors know.

"Mind-over" matter in a biological sense with placebo's? This certainly appears to be the case.

However, again, the mechanism behind it is not well understood, and, most importantly, DOES NOT WORK WITH ALL PATIENTS.

The cause for this disparity is unknown.

Traditional treatments for say, pain, are 100% effective when opiates are given. The statistics are far in excess of the placebo-effect.

Even still, truly it is an interesting subject worthy of further investigation.

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

You don't seem to understand the difference between fact and speculation. No surprise there. Possibilities are not a fact. That is a speculation. You also speculate about meteors. Not a fact. It's speculation. Again you speculate about a fire. Not a fact. You are silly and need to learn basic word meanings.

You seem to lack basic syntax skills as well as basic logic skills, and therefore lack the ability to understand language. No surprise there, explains your position in all this matter. I'll spell it out for you like I would to a 4-year-old, hoping you measure up to them. Let's get back to our example. "Your house might burn down next week." Which is equivalent to (has the same meaning as) "It is a possibility that your house will burn down next week." It is a FACT that this event is a possibility. The definition of fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true". It is most certainly known that it is possible that your house will burn down next week. But whether it is possible that you will ever master your own native language, is a mere speculation. Puts you to shame that this has to come from someone who picked it up in secondary grammar as a mandatory subject.

When others lure people away with false promises they are inserting themselves into the process and therefore affecting the outcome. A simple example of this is Madoff that convinced people to hand over their life savings and left them destitute."

Sounds a lot like a TV advert for alcohol to me. They make it all look goodie-goodie, best thing you can do with your life, never mind ruined families, destroyed lives, loved ones killed in drink-driving. I wouldn't do alcohol or drugs if THEY PAID ME. Most certainly wouldn't do it for free! For me to think that people actually fork out their hard-earned cash on substances that dumb you right down is outright preposterous. It certainly cures no diseases, it creates them. There aren't even case studies about alcohol curing diseases. But people are encouraged to use it, knowing fully well that many will abuse it. But alternative therapies? No, no, no. Don't go there my friend. There are no accounts that anyone ever healed from them. Don't go there, even when conventional medicine has abandoned you. Best thing to do is, wipe them from the public's awareness, and make sure no studies are done on them. Sure, makes sense. Conscious Autosuggestion (aka self-conducted hypnotherapy) can not possibly have any merits, no possible uses, or benefits in any field whatsoever. So let's just leave it alone, shall we?

You are completely out of touch with reality. To do what you suggests is fraud. It is criminal. It is immoral. It is unethical.

Because I suggested that they do controlled studies to find out how much of the effectiveness of painkillers is due to the placebo effect? So when they run a study with people in pain and give them placebos but tell them it's medicine, that's ethical? But my suggestion to turn the SAME experiment around, so they give them painkillers and tell them it's pain-enhancer, that's CRIMINAL??? It's a study! It seems you don't know much about studies in general. The subjects signing up for the study are well aware that it's a study. They voluntarily agreed to participate. My friend, if anyone is out of touch with reality, that's evidently you. You clearly lack a logical faculty altogether, you seriously need to seek professional help.

So now you argument is that you are uneducated. You didn't have to tell anyone that.

That, coming from you, actually made me chuckle.

Your argument is called an argument from personal ignorance. Are you kidding? Every single article you posted shows nothing more than the placebo effect. You've provided the evidence yourself.

You provided the evidence yourself that hypnosis only works if you believe in it. Don't you read the material you link to?

I need your quote and source in your next post, and don't you try to weasel out again. Just post the quote and the source. I provided 3 sources suggesting that belief is not a requirement for hypnotherapy to work, to debunk your false claim that

There is an important limitation of hypnotherapy. You have to fall for it. I mean you have to believe in it.

QUOTE AND SOURCE PLEASE!

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

You seem to lack basic syntax skills as well as basic logic skills, and therefore lack the ability to understand language. No surprise there, explains your position in all this matter. I'll spell it out for you like I would to a 4-year-old, hoping you measure up to them. Let's get back to our example. "Your house might burn down next week." Which is equivalent to (has the same meaning as) "It is a possibility that your house will burn down next week." It is a FACT that this event is a possibility. The definition of fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true". It is most certainly known that it is possible that your house will burn down next week. But whether it is possible that you will ever master your own native language, is a mere speculation. Puts you to shame that this has to come from someone who picked it up in secondary grammar as a mandatory subject.

Because I suggested that they do controlled studies to find out how much of the effectiveness of painkillers is due to the placebo effect? So when they run a study with people in pain and give them placebos but tell them it's medicine, that's ethical? But my suggestion to turn the SAME experiment around, so they give them painkillers and tell them it's pain-enhancer, that's CRIMINAL??? It's a study! It seems you don't know much about studies in general. The subjects signing up for the study are well aware that it's a study. They voluntarily agreed to participate. My friend, if anyone is out of touch with reality, that's evidently you. You clearly lack a logical faculty altogether, you seriously need to seek professional help.

Your "burn down next week" example is simply ignorant. You need to learn what a fact is. You need to learn basic English. Nothing you posted is a fact. You can't really be that ignorant. Those are not facts but speculation. Events that have not occurred cannot be facts. That is something you should have learned by elementary school.

Actually there are peer reviewed studies showing the benefits of alcohol. Here is an essay from Harvard on alcohol reducing cardiovascular disease.

http://www.hsph.harv...health_benefits

More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes. (4) The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25 percent to 40 percent reduction in risk.

That is way better than the woo you've been pushing. Not only are you wrong, but you chose to pick on alcohol which by far exceeds the benefits of any of the nonsense woo you tout.

No you total goofball. To give placebos and tell people they are painkillers is unethical, immoral and may be even considered criminal depending on the circumstances. It is clear that you have no idea what reprehensible ideas you spout.

We already know what a poor thinker you are and how you are unable to even understand the difference between fact and speculation. That is elementary school material where I live.

You provided no such evidence. Then again your feebleness is showing as you cannot understand the difference between fact and speculation. You are the one making all of the absurd claims and touting woo.

You spent many posts claiming that medicine today was involved with difficult to treat diseases. Where is there any evidence that any of this woo can deal with anything other than trivial problems?

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

All we have is pathetic and desperate effort to shore up techniques with marginal uses. These woo techniques are not effective in anything other than trivial assists in the medical field.

Yet the whining from the believers is that it might, it might it just might be helpful. Nothing seems to do any better than placebos. That's not helpful.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

So the claim that hypnotherapy is useful in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome or IBS. Is that correct?

As everyone should know what is published in a peer reviewed journal is something that meets certain standards. It does not mean it is correct. It simply means that the work was done with some expectation that the results are meaningful.

Here is a Cochrane evaluation of the studies.

http://summaries.***...-bowel-syndrome

Only a small number of studies of hypnotherapy have been performed and the way these studies were carried out was not up to a high standard. Hypnotherapy was either compared with standard treatment of IBS, with supportive psychotherapy (discussion of symptoms and possible contributing emotional problems and stressful life events) or with no treatment in patients on a waiting list to be seen by a specialist.

Even though the studies met the initial requirements in the peer review process the studies were not done as well as they should have been done. This is not unusual. Studies must be done within the resources available. Tens of millions cannot be tossed at every idea. Time, money, and effort have to used wisely.

The recommendation is to improve the quality of studies to determine if hypnotherapy is indeed useful. hat of course requires more resources in terms of money, time, and effort.

Edited by stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Hypnosis itself requires some belief by the person being hypnotized. The issue boils down to what might be term the susceptibility an individual has for hypnosis.

The greatest predictor of hypnotizing a person is what the person believes about hypnosis. People have tried to hypnotize me. It has always failed and that is probably due to me thinking it is a load of malarkey. I fall into that 5% category of people that cannot be hypnotized. It is known that people that are fantasy prone are excellent candidates for hypnosis.

There actually are studies about how susceptible a person is to hypnosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotic_susceptibility

Stern, D. B.; Spiegel, H.; Nee, J. C. (1979). "The Hypnotic Induction Profile:Normative observations, reliability, and validity". American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 21 (2–3): 109–133

As beliefs change so do the scores

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11778707

It turns out that some of what is perceived as being positive is actually in part "imaginative susceptibility." In other words, people react to hypnosis in a manner that they expect they would do if hypnotized. People will act out even when hypnotic induction has not been used.

Kirsch, I., Braffman, W. (2001). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(2), 57-61.

This brings to light a situation which might be called "negative hypnotizability." This means that hypnosis would lead to less response when hypnotized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Here is a Cochrane evaluation of the studies.

http://summaries.***...-bowel-syndrome

I applaud your determination to find anything on the interwebz that you can use to pick on peer-reviewed articles. Not much point giving you the evidence now, is there? It would appear nothing in the entire world constitutes evidence for you. Your life motto seems to be "Cogito ergo sum." What I can't help wondering is whether you actually believe that the Earth is flat. After all, no amount of evidence can convince you. And what surprises me is there is stuff you actually believe, like drugs like paracetamol are helpful. My question is this:

When you take a drug like paracetamol for the first time, 1. do you check if the are peer-reviewed articles from trustable sources confirming its effectiveness? And if you find any, do you spend more time looking for any study that might indicate that the peer-reviewed article was wrong, and end up saying "this is cr@p after all, I'm not taking it"? Or 2. do you just blindly trust the authority of big pharma? I'll buy and take anything they have without doing "research with a 'no amount of evidence is good for me' attitude"? Or maybe, 3. you try how each painkiller works for you, and decide based on personal experience?

Please explain how you do it. I know most people trust personal experience, and give things a shot to see how it works. Obviously you have "higher standards" and follow the process described in the first point above, and you follow the same process with every petty business in your life, must be exhilarating. So you don't believe the Earth is "round", or that the Sun is a star? Or you actually checked for articles for these to? Or do you blindly trust the theories in spite of there existing a logical system that provides an explanation for each piece of evidence that suggests "roundness"? Or is your protocol to follow consensus reality unquestioningly, with no need for evidence, and hypocritically only request it on this forum from people whose views you arbitrarily choose to pick on? Has it ever occurred to you to question the necessity for sustenance in the form of foodstuffs, and wondered that maybe it's not been studied and may be a self-perpetuating myth? Did you really rush to see if there were studies confirming this, to make sure you don't "eat yourself to death", or did you just rely on personal experience (you don't eat, you get hungry) as I suggested you should do regarding alternative treatments, using common sense and with a sense of personal responsibility?

First, this is not a peer-reviewed article. I would've imagined you'd be able to recognize one by now. And second, absolutely nothing in this study supports your ridiculous claim that you need to believe in hypnotherapy for it to work.

I provided 3 sources indicating that belief is not a requirement for hypnotherapy to work. I still need your source for your silly claim that it is.

And I notice you're not attacking Conscious Autosuggestion like you did before. Does that mean that you had no clue it was actually self-conducted hypnotherapy because you didn't do your research (again) and therefore spouted nonsense?

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

[/size]

I applaud your determination to find anything on the interwebz that you can use to pick on peer-reviewed articles. Not much point giving you the evidence now, is there? It would appear nothing in the entire world constitutes evidence for you. Your life motto seems to be "Cogito ergo sum." What I can't help wondering is whether you actually believe that the Earth is flat. After all, no amount of evidence can convince you. And what surprises me is there is stuff you actually believe, like drugs like paracetamol are helpful. My question is this:

<snip>

First, this is not a peer-reviewed article. I would've imagined you'd be able to recognize one by now. And second, absolutely nothing in this study supports your ridiculous claim that you need to believe in hypnotherapy for it to work.

<snipped>

You will eventually learn what peer reviewed is all about if you take the time to learn about studies. To call a cochrane report on an issue picking on peer-reviewed simply reveals an ignorance of research. Your comment that providing evidence is pointless is just being ignorant.

A peer-reviewed article is one which has been reviewed for obvious faults. It is an article showing that the study follows basic procedures. It shows that the conclusions of the article follow from the experiment. Any statistics used in the article are checked to see if they are appropriate. It does not mean that the conclusions are correct. It does not mean that the study is done as well as it could have been done. Articles are often done to the 95 percentile confidence level. That is often the minimal acceptable confidence interval for many publications. It balances cost vs result.

Stop the baby whining and excuses. Where are the studies that show that the woo malarkey you tout has any efficacy above the placebo effect? This continued childish banter does not get you off the hook in supporting your position. Where is the evidence that any of the hooey you tout is any better than the placebo effect. None of your hooey has any use as a primary treatment in any difficult to treat disease.

That is a peer reviewed article. How can you not know that? Are you really that ignorant?

http://ijceh.com/

I provided the proof that 5% of the population cannot be hypnotized. The reasons for that were stated. You are again wrong. I'll repost the evidence and maybe you will actually understand it his time. I can only hope.

Hypnosis itself requires some belief by the person being hypnotized. The issue boils down to what might be term the susceptibility an individual has for hypnosis.

The greatest predictor of hypnotizing a person is what the person believes about hypnosis. People have tried to hypnotize me. It has always failed and that is probably due to me thinking it is a load of malarkey. I fall into that 5% category of people that cannot be hypnotized. It is known that people that are fantasy prone are excellent candidates for hypnosis.

There actually are studies about how susceptible a person is to hypnosis.

http://en.wikipedia...._susceptibility

Stern, D. B.; Spiegel, H.; Nee, J. C. (1979). "The Hypnotic Induction Profile:Normative observations, reliability, and validity". American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis 21 (2–3): 109–133

As beliefs change so do the scores

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11778707

It turns out that some of what is perceived as being positive is actually in part "imaginative susceptibility." In other words, people react to hypnosis in a manner that they expect they would do if hypnotized. People will act out even when hypnotic induction has not been used.

Kirsch, I., Braffman, W. (2001). Imaginative suggestibility and hypnotizability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(2), 57-61.

This brings to light a situation which might be called "negative hypnotizability." This means that hypnosis would lead to less response when hypnotized.

Edited by stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

One of the interesting aspects of hypnotism is that people often are not hypnotized, but act out in a manner they feel is consistent with hypnosis. This effect is important to researchers since this "imaginative susceptibility" can affect the results of a study. In this situation the person is not hypnotized, but acts in a manner which they feel is consistent which what the hypnotist expects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Stereologist,

The title of this topic is, again, Indisputable Evidence for Mind over Matter. I didn't say I'm giving it, or that I know someone who does. (Heck, now that I look back, I didn't even say it exists!) I'm trying to tell people like you how you can find it. I don't want anyone to believe, just because you see a video. I provided examples to raise awareness these methods exist in the first place. (Which is embarrassing for the medical profession, considering the accounts and the magnitude of the possible implications. A lack of study cannot be excused, let alone used for evidence something doesn't work. Although I understand having Conscious Autosuggestion proven would effectively put the medical profession [and for that matter, the entirety of the pharmacological industry] out of business, so why would they WANT to conduct experiments - to lose their jobs and careers?) They add to the palette of tools one can use. More choice. As in, instead of relying on one method, like the 2% success rate chemo I quoted above from the National Center for Biotechnology Information from 2004 (chemo hasn't changed much if any at all in a single decade), you can try another method at the same time, or instead of it. I mean if you want to have yourself poisoned or radiated sh!tless, by all means go ahead. But I invite you to take inspiration from the examples I provided, prompting you to try things you haven't considered trying, and gain your own personal experience, whether it be something or nothing. And when you see it change (or save) your life, there you have it, your INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE!

1. If you have a serious illness like cancer, and western medicine has given up on you and you have nothing left to lose, please explain why trying alternative medicine is dangerous.

Then please explain why it makes sense to ask for evidence before you try any alternative methods. Would you choose death over trying something that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for, but no studies (or not enough) done yet?

And eventually, please explain to me how people fighting for their lives are supposed to make an informed choice, if they're not even aware of the alternatives, simply because the "medical" institutions do not provide this potentially life-saving information? If it weren't for forums like this, they would never find out there is a chance. Even if it is one in a million as you said, but probably more like one in a hundred, if you are that one that one of the methods happened to work on, do you care whether there was a peer-reviewed study about it or not? No. Instead, you're eternally grateful that you found the information (which is what this topic was trying to be all about until you showed up asking for universal evidence, which, for a reason that is way beyond me, you seem not to understand doesn't exist). I've told you like a dozen times like I'd have to to a 3-year old, but you just don't get it, that the evidence comes from personal experience when you have tried stuff and seen what works for YOU. You can't prove CA works, simply because it doesn't work for everybody, all the time. Same as chemo. Different people react differently.

2. If you have something like a headache, and you're the kind of person on whom HT or CA would work well, why would you choose side-effect-inducing drugs that mess up your natural immune response and have serious damaging effects in cases of long-term use, as described in the recent issue of The New Scientist I referred to earlier, over something that has no side-effects, is effective instantly, costs nothing, is safe to use long-term, and works just as well or possibly even better than certain drugs?? Except for the reason that you had no clue these options existed, of course. Which you seem to be working very hard on that people do not learn, for whatever twisted reason. You won't have your empirical evidence, stop crying for it like a baby for its dummy, how long are you going to be begging for something that doesn't exist (yet) before you understand that none of these work for EVERYBODY. They're there for individuals to try and see if any of them works for THEM PERSONALLY. But if the information is not provided in topics like this, how will they ever know there's a choice? You try it. Doesn't work? Go back to your drugs. It works? Good on you, you found a healthier option and saved money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

@ Rolci...

I fully understand your adaptation to alternative treatments, and well respected to be sure.

My concern, however, is your seemingly focus on "side-effects"

Well, organic Vitamin A can affect the human liver. And any fat-soluble nutrient, taken in excess, can cause significant problems.

Aspirin, originally derived from the willow bark(now synthesized), is a true low-level pain-killer and anti-inflammatory agent, however even the original can cause unwanted bleeding.

I could go on-and-on, but there is no need at this time.

The point being, my friend, is that even natural cures carries the risk of "side-effects"

Now, are the "side-effects" more prominent and frequent with high-end synthetic drugs? Likely so. No argument there.

But, do the benefits potentially outweigh the occasional harmful side-effects? In many case, YES. In some cases, NO.

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Stereologist,

1. If you have a serious illness like cancer, and western medicine has given up on you and you have nothing left to lose, please explain why trying alternative medicine is dangerous.

Then please explain why it makes sense to ask for evidence before you try any alternative methods. Would you choose death over trying something that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for, but no studies (or not enough) done yet?

And eventually, please explain to me how people fighting for their lives are supposed to make an informed choice, if they're not even aware of the alternatives, simply because the "medical" institutions do not provide this potentially life-saving information? If it weren't for forums like this, they would never find out there is a chance. Even if it is one in a million as you said, but probably more like one in a hundred, if you are that one that one of the methods happened to work on, do you care whether there was a peer-reviewed study about it or not? No. Instead, you're eternally grateful that you found the information (which is what this topic was trying to be all about until you showed up asking for universal evidence, which, for a reason that is way beyond me, you seem not to understand doesn't exist). I've told you like a dozen times like I'd have to to a 3-year old, but you just don't get it, that the evidence comes from personal experience when you have tried stuff and seen what works for YOU. You can't prove CA works, simply because it doesn't work for everybody, all the time. Same as chemo. Different people react differently.

2. If you have something like a headache, and you're the kind of person on whom HT or CA would work well, why would you choose side-effect-inducing drugs that mess up your natural immune response and have serious damaging effects in cases of long-term use, as described in the recent issue of The New Scientist I referred to earlier, over something that has no side-effects, is effective instantly, costs nothing, is safe to use long-term, and works just as well or possibly even better than certain drugs?? Except for the reason that you had no clue these options existed, of course. Which you seem to be working very hard on that people do not learn, for whatever twisted reason. You won't have your empirical evidence, stop crying for it like a baby for its dummy, how long are you going to be begging for something that doesn't exist (yet) before you understand that none of these work for EVERYBODY. They're there for individuals to try and see if any of them works for THEM PERSONALLY. But if the information is not provided in topics like this, how will they ever know there's a choice? You try it. Doesn't work? Go back to your drugs. It works? Good on you, you found a healthier option and saved money.

Your questions have been answered many times. Let's review the thread.

Half-truths, rumors and drugs. The OP is a strong supporter of using hallucinogens to gain knowledge, which probably explains why half his posts are made up.
OP... Keep it Simple and show the actual evidence as opposed to ONLY excessive opinions in support of it.
With Rolci's misconceptions thrown in. No amount of convincing the subconscious will make breatharianism possible, and the idea that being electrocuted requires an observer is outright stupidity.
And you use the term "indisputable". I'm not sure, from reading your posts here, that you actually know what the meaning of that word is.
Please show us all where this "Conscious Autosuggestion" has cured anything. I can't wait to see something. As far as why should anyone take a chance on some BS unproved crapola just because it might make a minor difference in 1 person in a hundred million the answer is simple: only use what makes a difference.
There re many people that are cancer survivors, but those using real medicine fair so much better than those relying on some of thew quackery you suggest. How sad that o many die needlessly when efficacious medicines are available to them.
And please don't try to weasel out of providing some evidence for your claims of the efficacy of treatments you tout. You've made grandiose claims and I believe none of your claims has any support whatsoever. You want to rely on what you refer to as "trustable sources". What good does that do? Where are the studies? You post a 1923 article which sounds like a dog and pony show at a religious tent. That provides nothing of interest. It may fool a few, but it doesn't fool me.

You can spot the phonies a mile away because they use woo words to con their prey. The cure is natural, healthy, holistic, organic, alternative, etc. Then they give the testimonials. The use of these "case studies" is a dead giveaway for quackery. Another sure give away for quackery is those that denigrate real medicine.
Skeptics are not gullible like the people that fall for "Conscious Autosuggestion" and other suck malarkey. We want to follow the best methods and those are discovered through testing. Some people just want to believe in nonsense such as "Conscious Autosuggestion". Go for it. What is it to me if someone tries that and dies from preventable conditions. I on the other want to use the best that is available. I can choose from methods that have been tested and verified as efficacious.
Smart people do use evidence based methods. Gullible people will do anything they are told. Will the gullible buy magnets and copper bracelets? You bet. Will the gullible fool kill themselves by taking weird herbal concoctions? They do. Will EFT tapping do anything about cancer? Not at all. Will meditation do anything about cancer? Not at all. Will any of this phoney baloney have any effect on cancer? Not at all.

Here we have the baloney of someone posting links to people feeling better when they meditate and then pointing out that real medicine has along way to go in treating cancer. Please show us real studies where the baloney has been effective. Even the homeopathy folks have done studies and they show that it is effective around 6% of the studies. Amazingly that would be expected from studies done at the 95% confidence interval.

1. Why would anyone but a fool use something that is ineffective? Why would anyone bother to waste effort even in a palliative setting on unproven baloney? Ther eis a good reason that your hooey is only supported by anecdotes. It is a failure.

You continue to post the lie that your junk claims are "potentially life-saving". There is nothing potential about the garbage you spew. There is no chance as you claim. These are lies. There is nothing truthful in your asinine claims. What sort of completely gullible fool would ever think that? That personal experience claim is as foolish as anything else you claim. It's a childish and inept position made by failed snake oil salesmen.

There is nothing in that entire pile of idiotic woo you tout that can do anything other than the placebo effect.

2. Your claims that drugs intended for a headache cause immune issues or are damaging sounds like another lie. Please provide evidence that any drug given for a headache has these effects. Oh that's right you want to be a spreader of lies. What you suggest here is not about taking something for a head ache. You are purposely and wantonly telling lies about the article. Either that or you are unable to read and comprehend the article. I vote for both conditions.

You also lie when you say that these ineffective woo things you tout have no side effects. I already posted some. You claim it is safe to use long term. You have no evidence for that. This is just more gibberish you are making up. There are drugs that work much better than the woo. The woo you tout has already been shown to be ineffective for many issues. That was right here in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

So call natural drugs are often more dangerous because the dosages are uncontrolled. These materials are highly dangerous because fools think they are completely safe. Some people seeing a doctor think they can also take these natural drugs. They cause terrible and sometimes life threatening complications.

Dangerous herbals people take include: aloe vera, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, saw palmetto, and even garlic.

A large part of the drug interaction deaths in the US are believed to be due to interactions between prescribed drugs and herbals taken by patients.

The problem is that people are taking what is called "alternative medicine" without knowing if works or if it is safe. I place the terms in quotes because I think if it is medicine then prove it and call it medicine. If it is not proven effective and safe then don't pretend it is medicine. Call it something like: things to do that don't work and might not be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Anecdotes are anecdotes. Personal experience is a form of anecdote.

When it comes to issues of medicine personal experience is nothing more than speculation. There is no way to confirm any part of the story. These personal experience stories offer anything you want to imagine from cigars preventing lung cancer, to magnets building muscles, to eating ice cream to lose weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Your claims that drugs intended for a headache cause immune issues or are damaging sounds like another lie. Please provide evidence that any drug given for a headache has these effects. Oh that's right you want to be a spreader of lies.

You have proven your uninformedness numerous times in this thread, here we have just another ridiculous accusation of yours, simply because you're not keeping up with science and live in the distant past.

New Scientist - 31 May 2014 page 34:

about paracetamol:

"Given its ubiquity, you might assume that paracetamol is safe and effective - at least at the recommended dose. That's why we lean on it more than aspirin or ibuprofen, which can irritate the stomach lining and cause bleeding. But as it turns out, this stalwart of the medicine cabinet is not quite as reliably gentle as you might think."

"How could this be? The fact is, despite its ubiquity, we still don't really understand how paracetamol works."

"levels of haemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood, were dropping fast. What's more, their red blood cells were growing smaller and paler. The most logical explanation was that they were losing blood internally, and significant quantities of it. After three months, a fifth of them seemed to have lost the equivalent of an entire unit of blood (about 400 millilitres). That was the same amount as those taking ibuprofen - only the ibuprofen group reported feeling less pain (Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol 70, p 1534).

In those combining high doses of both paracetamol and ibuprofen, the haemoglobin loss after three months was even more startling: 7 per cent of the people in that group lost the amount of haemoglobin you would find in two units of blood. The upshot: when taken for long periods, paracetamol may be just as damaging to the stomach lining as NSAID drugs are.."

"In January, the US Food and Drug Administration asked manufacturers to stop producing prescription drugs containing more than 325 milligrams of paracetamol per tablet because of the risk of accidental overdose. Paracetamol poisoning is responsible for nearly 80,000 visits to the emergency room in the US each year, and a third of these are people who overdosed accidentally."

"As little as 5 to 7.5 g per day can cause serious liver complications in otherwise healthy people. For people with compromised liver function due to alcoholism or liver disease, a harmful dose can be lower still. And despite the fact that the recommended maximum dose is no more than 4 g per day, roughly 6 per cent of US adults - about 14 million people - are routinely prescribed more than this"

"A review of research that looked at people taking paracetamol to relieve chronic joint pain found seven studies that compared the drug with a placebo. Five of these found it to be marginally more effective, but two found no difference."

"Why are we bothering to give a drug to people that's toxic, that has significant potential problems, when it doesn't work? ... It's unethical."

http://issuu.com/gal...ist-31-may-2014

Where the hell have you been??

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Your above display of ignorance is also responsible that you haven't heard of the 2 studies I gave you earlier. Please explain to us, Stereologist, what about this study suggests the placebo effect to you:

Psychoneuroendocrinology Volume 40, Pages 96–107, February 2014

http://tinyurl.com/m8g8odv - Rapid changes in histone deacetylases and inflammatory gene expression in expert meditators

There is nothing in that entire pile of idiotic woo you tout that can do anything other than the placebo effect.

1. What I need you to do is to give me just ONE study that indicated even the remotest possibility that some placebo was able to provide an individual altered gene expression.

As the related Sciencedaily article I was referring to earlier mentioned, "Mindfulness-based trainings have shown beneficial effects on inflammatory disorders in prior clinical studies." Surely you are able to use a search engine and don't need me to stick these studies under your nose.

2. But I invite you to to provide us any study that concluded that plain placebo was able to help inflammatory disorders.

Further reference for your insatiable appetite:

National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.pnas.org/...ent/111/20/7379 - Voluntary activation of the sympathetic nervous system and attenuation of the innate immune response in humans

3. Please provide us ONE documented example of ANY placebo EVER giving a test subject the ability to voluntary activation of the sympathetic nervous system.

Thank you very much.

There is an important limitation of hypnotherapy. You have to fall for it. I mean you have to believe in it.

Still waiting for evidence of your ridiculous claim. Don't come to me telling me about how 5% of the population can't be hypnotized. We're talking about the vast majority of the people - the 95%. And your claim was about hypnotherapy, not hypnosis. Give me the study that proves belief is necessary for hypnotherapy (on the 95% that can be hypnotized). I've asked you a dozen times now. Where is your evidence? Let me guess. You don't have it. Lies, lies, accusations, and more lies. I suggest you get some education.

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

<snip>

Where the hell have you been??

This is called moving the goalposts. Any material in excess can have serious side effects. Salt is essential for life and too much can lead to dehydration. Garlic in excess leads to bleeding problems.

Here is the original post issue:

If you have something like a headache

Now you try to change the situation by discussing ongoing and long term use of drugs. You posted information about months of continuous usage and people taking overdoses.

Do you think your ignorant shenanigans would not be exposed? Do you really think you could get away with this childish change? No you cant.

There is a possibility that you lack basic reasoning skills. Your rant about real medicine and cancer never showed anything at all where the nonsense woo you tout addressed cancer treatment. There is also your inability to understand what a fact is. There is also your inability to identify peer-reviewed articles.The list of mistakes you've made in this thread is large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Now you try to change the situation by discussing ongoing and long term use of drugs. You posted information about months of continuous usage and people taking overdoses.

"As little as 5 to 7.5 g per day can cause serious liver complications in otherwise healthy people. For people with compromised liver function due to alcoholism or liver disease, a harmful dose can be lower still. And despite the fact that the recommended maximum dose is no more than 4 g per day, roughly 6 per cent of US adults - about 14 million people - are routinely prescribed more than this"

New Scientist - 31 May 2014 page 34

What overdose??? You didn't read the article again, did you??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Your above display of ignorance is also responsible that you haven't heard of the 2 studies I gave you earlier. Please explain to us, Stereologist, what about this study suggests the placebo effect to you:

<snip>

Thank you very much.

Still waiting for evidence of your ridiculous claim. Don't come to me telling me about how 5% of the population can't be hypnotized. We're talking about the vast majority of the people - the 95%. And your claim was about hypnotherapy, not hypnosis. Give me the study that proves belief is necessary for hypnotherapy (on the 95% that can be hypnotized). I've asked you a dozen times now. Where is your evidence? Let me guess. You don't have it. Lies, lies, accusations, and more lies. I suggest you get some education.

Where in those articles does it show that there is anything other than the placebo effect at work? There is nothing. You seem completely unable to understand anything at all. You are jumping to conclusions that either of these articles provides anything other than the placebo.

All you have here is your hopes that anything detected is not the placebo effect.

You need to show that the response is up and above the placebo effect. Please provide a report that shows that. It is quite clear that you, who can't even identify whether or not an article is peer-reviewed is capable of understanding much about the contents of those article. You can't even figure out the meaning of the word fact.

Your guesses are what are called non sequiturs. Your inference that these effects are not placebo effects is not warranted by the articles.

So please show us any study which demonstrates that any of the baloney you tout is not a placebo effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Here is more of the nonsense being touted in this thread:

they stop their hearts

There is no documented evidence that this happens. There are tricks that are used. There are laughable stories from the Noetic group.

People can change their heart rate. It doesn't take shaman or swami or whatever to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.