quote:

Originally posted by Bod the Builder:
Wow! There's certainly a lot of interest here. Maybe there's someone reading this who is in a position to set up a double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled experiment to study hypnoanaesthesia. I'd be interested in the results.

would you b intersted in taking part ?

Yes, absolutely.

Well bob you and me make two I wonder if malkie could provide us with a testing protocol

This is how new ideas work and serious ideas are formed come on malkie see life from the inside looking out not the outside looking in we could bring something new into the world

again, asking me questions, yet you are unwilling (or more likely unable) to answer my questions.

Like I stated earlier, it is impossible to generate a genuine trial with appropriate controls, as there cannot be controls for any form of congative/intervention/hypnotic therapy.

(martin already conceeded this point)

Hence you can continue to argue your methods "work" because they can never truely be dismissed.


personally I have shown recovery in psoriasis

and how do you know that it just didn't "go away" of it's own accord ?

At the risk of being offensive malkie every time we try to start a serious discussion you jump in why don’t you let the grown ups talk its way past your bedtime now which is why you didn’t see the programme on monday

HMMMM

quote:

Originally posted by thetrancestate:
At the risk of being offensive malkie every time we try to start a serious discussion you jump in why don’t you let the grown ups talk its way past your bedtime now which is why you didn’t see the programme on monday

so, again you are attacking the person, not their arguements.

Do you realise that suggests that you don't know what you are talking about ? (regards hypnosis).

I've been polite, and asked simple questions, yet you've responded with sarcastic comments and insults.

I have now been watching you all, what is not surprising malkie is why you seem to be the antagonist in this debate. You attempt to create the illusion of speaking from authority with no authority; all members so far have maintained a degree of credibility by declaring any professional or personal interest in the subject of debate. You however hide behind the cloak of anonymity, cherrry999 I task you with re focusing the argument thetrancestate looking through your posts you seem to struggle academically but press home your case, you are being watched Dr beard your points are very valid but don’t treat hypnosis as a science it is a procedure. A very simple procedure your talent is dealing with the unconscious mind which is everything we are not aware of now that may change how we understand tomorrow. vegEd you are the monitor that balances the scales

ballerophon the avenger is now watching be on your guard

Hi malkie

Facinating ability to refuse to accept anything you don't understand. Remember. there is no reality, only what you chose to believe. It matters little if you find it difficult to accept a reality that is not in line with your prove or else approach. What is important is the simple fact that for those who do believe in the power of the unconscious/subconscious mind substantial help with pain and other debilitating problems can be experienced. Your own scepticism is in itself admirable as it allows those of us with more open minds to marvel at the attitudes that permitted such phenomenom as the Spanish Inquisition. To suggest that a practitioner of hypnotherapy could indulge in all kinds of Svengeli control only goes further to enlighten the rest of us to the level of ignorance with which you approach this subject. I agree that as much replicable research as possible be carried out, if only to allow someone like yourself to broaden the horizen of their experience. However if you were to familiarise yourself with some of the research in print, for example, Hypnosis and the relief of pain, E.R.and J.R. Hilgard, The International Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis, Burrows, Stanley and Bloom or Ericksonian Approaches, Battino and South, you may just happen upon some of the answers you seek. Other contributers have sought answers within their own experience and for this I applaud them. Though it is clear that you are not a person to be easily swayed by anothers personal experience, therefore I offer you this opportunity to enlighten yourself with some reseach which even you may find credible. If after reading this material you are still unconvinced then that is a good thing as that means everyones opinion of you fits in their reality in the same way as your opinion of me fits in yours in a way thay makes you feel comfortable.

quote:

Originally posted by thetrancestate:
should the NHS give us its customers the opportunity to decide weather we accept hypnosis as a useful intervention for our medical problems and give us the choice ?

That's a fair question but for that to happen, you need to provide clear quantified evidence, which I beleive is what Malkie is asking for. The NHS would need to be able to assure the public of it's safety in form of clear-cut scientifically viable data. Nothing wrong with being sceptical every now and then otherwise one is likely to beleive everything they watch on more4.

Personally I feel the unconscious mind is hugely powerful beyond imagination and that is precisely why I feel hypnosis can be extremely dangerous for some people. yes or no?

quote:

Facinating ability to refuse to accept anything you don't understand.

I've stated 3 or 4 times now that me skeptisism has absolutely nothing to do with my understanding of hypnosis. To use this arguement against me proves your lack of proof.

I don't exactly understand how a jet engine works, but I accept that it works because I've flown in airplanes.

There are plenty of engineering publications on the workings of jet engines, and if I was really bothered I'd study up and understand the workings.

Similar publications do not exist for hypnosis, because there can be no valid controls due to the nature of hypnosis. (if you disagree I'd be happy to hear your reasoning).


I've asked some pretty simple questions about hypnosis, and the 'experts' have been unwilling (or rather unable) to answer them. This suggests to me (and also the casual reader) that hypnotists truely are frauds.

quote:

Hypnosis and the relief of pain, E.R.and J.R. Hilgard, The International Handbook of Clinical Hypnosis, Burrows, Stanley and Bloom or Ericksonian Approaches, Battino and South

These aren't peer reviewed, nor do they contain appropriately controlled studies.

Furthermore, Prof G Burrows states that hyponsis doesn't work in this study, which was published in a peer reviewed journal, is randomised, but the control group aren't a true control group.

quote:

Treatment effectiveness of hypnosis and behaviour therapy in smoking cessation: a methodological refinement
Addictive Behaviors, Volume 11, Issue 4, 1986, Pages 355-365

You say that you don't have to understand how a jet engine works, to accept that it does work. Fair enough I think that is the case for all of us.

Couldn't a similair argument run that allthough it is very difficult (or impossible) to run an experiment on the use of hypnosis in surgery with a valid control group (a position I don't nescessarily agree with) this is not a valid reason to reject it out of hand. Is this not a case where other types of evidence could be taken into account, for example succesfully carrying out surgery without anaethetic on a number of occasions. I know one might argue about placebo effects, but again is this not one of those situations where the placebo effect is as useful and no less valid than hypnosis it's self?

And I repeat, Malkie did you watch the programme?

quote:

it is very difficult (or impossible) to run an experiment on the use of hypnosis in surgery with a valid control group (a position I don't nescessarily agree with) this is not a valid reason to reject it out of hand

I'm not outright rejecting it, just asking for some reasonable evidence.

Furthermore I've asked for evidence of it's safety, and been responded to with sarcastic comments and insults.

That's not really the way to instill confidence in someone who is skeptical. Infact all it does do is confirm my suspicions

quote:

is this not one of those situations where the placebo effect is as useful and no less valid than hypnosis it's self?

I totally agree. If it benefits people who are suffering then great! I wouldn't deny that to anyone. I'm just questioning if the benefit came from genuine hypnosis, or because they met and spoke to a "specialist".

You can't separate it.

quote:

And I repeat, Malkie did you watch the programme?

Yes, I'm not entirely sure that's relevant. For example I watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear on national television, but I don't for a second believe that he has the power to make this genuinely disappear.

Likewise I question Derren Brown on TV. His delivery is smooth and impressive, yet it could all be 100% fabricated for the cameras.

A perfect example might be the original "Graeme Norton" show on Channel4. They always seem to have interesting random people in the crowd, and would telephone weird people during the show. On TV in the UK it was depicted as being genuine, yet everything on the show (except the real guests) was faked for the TV cameras.

Ok, great so if somebody shows that it can be used to help people, for example by showing surgery without anaesthetic on TV, that would be good reason to explore it further?

I don't understand what you meen by the distinction of real hypnosis and meeting and speeking to a specialist? Surely the only thing that is really important here is whether anaesthetic was used?

Also do you really think that hypnosis could be more dangerous than general anaesthetics and the potential dangerous side effects? I am pretty sure if the hypnotist and surgeon involved thought that was a real and present danger they would not be doing it on a live TV show.

Whether you watched it or not is relevant, because I thought it presented some pretty compelling, allthough I accept not conclusive, evidence and I just wanted to see if you had seen it.

You say that you cannot believe everything you see on TV, certainly I would not dispute this, but are you really suggesting that this was some big conspiracy set up for the cameras? I wonder to what end? I for one believe 100% what I saw.

malkie wrote:

quote:

I'm just questioning if the benefit came from genuine hypnosis, or because they met and spoke to a "specialist".

Difficult to see how Butler's operation under self-hypnosis could fulfil the second condition you mention.

I don't think it should be available on the NHS. For a start I would object my taxes being used to pay for something that at best is not proven to work and at worst can cause serious mental problems for people.

Also who would decide who is appropriate for hypnotic treatment. Would you leave it up to the gullible public? Their GP? or as specialist. Then if things went wrong who would be to blame.

The gullible public?? You mean us Rob??

Errrr Yes why not, I would say to some degree we choose our own care anyway, we are not forced down paths by Doctors often, so I would suggest this is normal practice.

As for your first point, I couldnt agree more, exactly how many people feel over pharmaceuticals too. Waste of Tax money for research on some things that either dont work or can be extremely dangerous. And who is to decide that we should take them, a specialist??, a GP?? or the gullible public.

We even have a very recent case showing how this does happen.

It wasnt contamination, it wasnt a dosing error and therewas nothing wrong with the way the drugs were given. What actually caused the 'unprecendented'reaction that left six healthy volunteers fighting for their lives during a drug saftey trial in London last month was an unexpected biological effect of the drug itself.

The drug TGN1412, triggered widespread inflammation when it 3was injected into six men at Northwick Hospital on 13 March, according to Paraxel, the company running the trial. The reaction was not seen in animals.

'It is therefore unexpected that with a 500 fold dillution the effects were as great as they were in the human subjects.' says Kent Woods, chief executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products regulation agency.

An expert group has been setup to review the evidence and assess how tests involving novel biological molecules should be run.
- Taken from NS 15 April

quote:

Originally posted by cherry999:
Difficult to see how Butler's operation under self-hypnosis could fulfil the second condition you mention.

Then I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of controls and placebo effects.

quote:

I don't understand what you meen by the distinction of real hypnosis and meeting and speeking to a specialist? Surely the only thing that is really important here is whether anaesthetic was used?

Again, this gets back to the use of appropriate controls.

You see, some people will respond positive to just be consulted by a "specialist", no matter what treatment they receive. A specialist can give a boiled sweet saying it's a miracle cure, and a significant population will respond to it.

This was proven beautifully recent in an asthma study where patients were given dummy mattress protectors and observed a massive improvement in symptoms and reduction medication.

Similarly you could give a placebo to someone before an operation, or hypnotise them, and in both groups you will have people who will not feel pain.

Hence you cannot conclusively show that hypnosis is the cause for a lack of pain sensation.

quote:

You say that you cannot believe everything you see on TV, certainly I would not dispute this, but are you really suggesting that this was some big conspiracy set up for the cameras? I wonder to what end? I for one believe 100% what I saw.

Well, this is kind of my point. I can't conclude if that operation was fake or not - I wasn't there, I didn't see the set up, and I don't know if the patient involved felt pain on a normal basis or not.

So, I'm more likely to believe genuine repeated studies using appropriate controls which have been published in peer reviewed medical journals. However, these sadly do not exist, so we're stuck in the situation where the power of hypnosis cannot be proven.

quote:

Then I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of controls and placebo effects.

On the contrary, as a result of my professional qualifications, I do understand these concepts and therefore find your premise invalid.

But then we are back to the point aren't we that just because due to the nature of hypnosis we can't have perfect controlled experiment is no reason to not persue it. If for example 50 hernia experiments were carried out using only hypnosis this surely would be good evidence to suggets that hypnosis should be used in cases where traditional general anaesthetic could not. Did the programme not make a compelling case that (leaving conspiracy theories aside) clearly hypnosis can help people have surgery without anaesthetic (because they showed it happen) and so therefore should be further investigated by the NHS as it could potentially save lives in the most extreme cases?

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that this does not need further study, one swallow does not make a summer, but in terms of what one television programme can show it did a very good job of showing a man apparently having surgery with no pain using only hypnosis.

Are you really suggesting that in the case that somebody needs life saving surgery, but is allergic to anaesthetic they should not be offered hypnosis due to the difficulty in carrying out a double blind control experiment?

When it comes to placebo effect, if it is the placebo effect that is working is that not the very same thing that the hypnotists are claiming? i.e. that the subconscious mind is the thing that is overcoming the pain, by arguing for the power of placebo aren't you in fact arguing the very same case as the hypnotists in that the mind is a very powerful thing in terms of overcoming physical sensation?