talkmagic.co.uk

Ted wrote:

Wishmaster wrote:those I cited are very old, as I just noticed. In medical terms, they are probably questionable as evidence now without newer studies to back them up.

Old research isn't necessarily bad because it is old. Newton's theories are still held in pretty good stead. As are those formed by Pythagoras, Archimedes etc. Freud might be an exception, but let's not assume that old is better than new by default.

By the way, I didn't read mrgoat's post as being as provocative as you seemed to take it.

It's a genuine interest. I'd LOVE to see some proper research.

No provocation was intended.

Lady of Mystery wrote:I wonder, does it really matter how it works. Is it a placebo, altered state of mind or something, I don't htink that it matters, the main thing is that it does seem to work.

It's kinda like psychics to me.

There appears to be no evidence to suggest it works at all.

So if you claim doing x will do y and you take money from people to do it and all you are really doing is giving them a sugar pill, then yes, I think it matters.

magicofthemind wrote:I would hate to think that I'd spent seven years as a qualified hypnotherapist using techniques which are no more effective than a "chat".

By the way, arguing that hypnosis works by "the placebo effect" explains nothing - that's a label, not an explanation. No-one knows how it works. I prefer to think that the placebo effect works by hypnosis.

I wasn't arguing that it 'worked' because of the placebo effect. I have been pointing out research I've found which proves it is no more effective than a sugar pill.

I'm not even sure what 'works' means in this case!

But as you've been doing it for 7 years, you must the one up to speed with the latest research?

Do you know of any peer-reviewed double blind research done in this field?

Wishmaster wrote:mrgoat, you are sceptical almost to the point of derision that hypnosis is nothing more than placebo. You are, of course, entitled to that viewpoint. Yet, I still think you are simply taking the p**s here and are not genuinely interested. I'm not convinced this isn't some wind up, based on what you've said so far.

Sorry you feel like that. I *am* genuinely interested if there is any research to prove otherwise. But can't convince you of that by typing.

So of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

Wishmaster wrote:I cannot be bothered playing this game and think I will bow out of this thread. I've tried to help and was more than happy to find current research over the next few days. However, I suspect nothing I post will suffice. I have nothing to prove and will bid this thread farewell.

Good luck.

Wishmaster.

OK, fair enough. I mean, I don't think there is any research that is double blind, peer-reviewed and published in a respected magazine. That's really where I was trying to get to.

Which is odd, as if it works, at all, then surely someone, somewhere would have had proper research done?

No derision, no aggression. Genuine interest in a subject that at least APPEARS to have no proof it actually works.

thedarkangel wrote:Did you know that one of the first practical uses of "mesmerism" was to talk to dead people? Tis true.

Really?

One of the more modern pioneers of hypnosis was an 18th century Viennese doctor, Franz Anton Mesmer, who used relaxation and soothing words in a therapy which he called Mesmerism ("mesmerizing" comes from his name, as well).

What the article fails to mention is that Mesmer stumbled upon the power of suggestion by a charismatic character over believing clients. In the beginning he used magnets and magnetized objects to do what today's hypnotists do in the showroom and the clinic, and what faith healers do in tents and churches. With Louis XVIs and Marie Antoinette's help, Mesmer set up a Magnetic Institute where he had his patients do such things as sit with their feet in a fountain of magnetized water while holding cables attached to magnetized trees. He quickly learned that he got the same results without the magnetic props. King Louis was not as fond of Mesmer as was his wife. He set up a scientific commission to investigate his claims, one of which was that he could channel "animal magnetism" (his term for the "energy" he claimed he was directing to bring about his cures) into objects like trees, which would then have curative powers. He was later denounced as a fraud by the French medical establishment and by a commission that included Benjamin Franklin that had performed a rather simple but revealing test involving a "magnetized tree" and a blindfolded 12-year-old boy who was overcome by the force of the energy the farther away from it he traveled.*

Something similar seems to happen with techniques like hypnotherapy: the farther one gets from the science, the more powerful the effect of the therapy.

http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia2.html

Here's an article with links to the main sources for hypnotherapy research:

http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/827/h ... notherapy/

I can recommend Google Scholar if you haven't tried it before.

Barry

magicofthemind wrote:Here's an article with links to the main sources for hypnotherapy research:

http://www.hypnotherapists.org.uk/827/h ... notherapy/

I can recommend Google Scholar if you haven't tried it before.

Barry

Thanks Barry.

PubMed came up in my research yesterday:

"a search of PubMed found a systematic review of studies on hypnosis and cancer patients. Six randomized control studies were evaluated for the effectiveness of hypnosis in treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In five of these studies the participants were children. "Meta-analysis revealed a large effect size of hypnotic treatment when compared with treatment as usual, and the effect was at least as large as that of cognitive-behavioural therapy." This is what one would expect if the hypnosis were accompanied by elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy or if both were no more effective than a placebo."

I've just searched all of the links in that for "double blind clinical trial hypnotherapy" and got no results? Did you find any?

In fact, the number one hit on google scholar (and no I didn't know about that, it's great, thanks!) states: "The findings from these studies show that hypnotic analgesia is consistently superior to NO TREATMENT but equivalent to relaxation and autogenic training for pain conditions"

http://www.fasterhealingwithhypnosis.co ... l_pain.pdf

So I agree with that. It's more effective than nothing but the same efficacy as simple relaxation techniques.

I suspect, as science seems to think, that it's placebo and CBT. And that makes sense to me.

Still love to read more, this is really interesting me. Thanks again for the links.

I hate to agree with the highly irritating Mr Goat but I happen to know that hypnosis is a load of old cobblers.

And in fact I have never seen a stage hypnotist who is any good who actually believes in this tommrot.

I thank the Lord that I am not hampered by belief.

mark lewis wrote:I hate to agree with the highly irritating Mr Goat but I happen to know that hypnosis is a load of old cobblers.

Wow.

I feel I have achieved some sort of pinnacle.

I am honoured to be called irritating by you, Sir.

mark lewis wrote:I hate to agree with the highly irritating Mr Goat but I happen to know that hypnosis is a load of old cobblers.

That's odd - I happen to know that it isn't.

Mind you, there's hypnosis and there's hypnosis. The methods I use in hypnotherapy are quite different from those used in stage hypnotism.

Barry

Wow that now makes three Hypnotherapists on this forum.

A strange correlation ahem anyway.

Anyway

Every major medical association in the world recognizes hypnosis as a valid treatment for specific issues.

Wiki has a nice summed up research section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotherapy#Research

So once again...

We are not medical researchers... we are also not capable of reaching some as of yet named burden of proof because you have not stated what WILL make you believe. Other than a double blind study with some increase of which you don't state what would be required simply more than the placebo effect.

You have two choices... accept that every major medical field acknowledges hypnosis is a valid tool or ... don't and convince yourself that I and people like me are evil vindictive people that use ... that use? what do we use?

Well obviously we use something to bilk people out of money.

Sort of done with this silliness. Its a lot like saying , "Obviously gravity doesn't exist you can't PROVE it. Where is the study showing the gravitron huh? no gravitron no gravity I'm tying myself off to the roof.'

Infinite wrote: Sort of done with this silliness. Its a lot like saying , "Obviously gravity doesn't exist you can't PROVE it. Where is the study showing the gravitron huh? no gravitron no gravity I'm tying myself off to the roof.'

Absolutely spot on. If you were trying to SELL someone gravity as a therapy.

I'd use Reiki as a more fitting analogy. You cannot see, or measure, the 'energy' Reiki healers claim to manipulate. You cannot prove it works. Yet, people make astounding claims after having a Reiki session.

I'm glad you and the other hypnotherapists here have a belief in it. I would defend to the death your right to believe in whatever you want. I'm really glad you are seemingly help people do stuff. That's great.

I'm just not really sure why the people that believe in this 'science' got so miffed when I asked what I thought was a really simple question. "Is there any proof".

Sorry if my tone of voice was misconstrued, I meant no disrespect to anyone here. I was genuinely interested in reading research that showed it to do more than a placebo would.

As I said before - what makes you think that a placebo does "nothing"?

Barry

magicofthemind wrote:As I said before - what makes you think that a placebo does "nothing"?

Barry

Sorry I missed you asking me that.

I don't believe I have ever suggested a placebo does nothing. I don't believe a placebo does nothing. That would be ridiculous.

It's been proved (in double blind clinical trials) that the placebo effect is massive.

Hope that clarifies things.

mrgoat wrote:
It's been proved (in double blind clinical trials) that the placebo effect is massive.

So, if hypnosis is no better than a placebo - and presumably no worse - its effect would be massive?

Barry