talkmagic.co.uk

magicofthemind wrote:

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

Can I get a "quod erat demonstrandum"?

magicofthemind wrote:

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

That's right! It seems hypnosis has no more or less of an effect than if one were to use a simple sugar pill.

Or at least, I've not been able to find any research that proves otherwise.

But a highly effective simple sugar pill.....

Barry

magicofthemind wrote:But a highly effective simple sugar pill.....

Barry

Did anyone suggest otherwise?

The word "simple" may have carried that implication.

Barry

maybe in mr. goat's quest for proof - why not just contact http://www.bsch.org.uk/ and ask...

i would like to say though, that even if there is none - that doesnt mean it doesnt work...

IAIN wrote:maybe in mr. goat's quest for proof - why not just contact http://www.bsch.org.uk/ and ask...

i would like to say though, that even if there is none - that doesnt mean it doesnt work...

Yes, sure to get an unbiased POV from them!

no, ask them if there's been any of your double-blind tests done, or for any other proof...scientific is scientific...

why not make contact if you really want to know? i would...

it wont make a blind bit of difference though, but nethertheless, you'll get "an answer"....

i would have thought that organisation, or one similar would be involved in the testing....

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

Actually, that is not true. Some studies have noted the existence of the placebo effect to a certain extent (but not to a "massive" level), while recent (and controversial) research has discounted it.

Besides all that, the placebo effect works differently depending on the ailment. For example, pain involves the brain so you might expect that the mind could regulate pain to some degree - which is where the placebo effect comes in to play. Cancer, HIV and broken bones, on the other hand, are different types of disease and I don't think you'll find any research that even slightly suggests that placebo "sugar pills" help with these.

Ted wrote:Actually, that is not true. Some studies have noted the existence of the placebo effect to a certain extent (but not to a "massive" level), while recent (and controversial) research has discounted it.

Besides all that, the placebo effect works differently depending on the ailment. For example, pain involves the brain so you might expect that the mind could regulate pain to some degree - which is where the placebo effect comes in to play. Cancer, HIV and broken bones, on the other hand, are different types of disease and I don't think you'll find any research that even slightly suggests that placebo "sugar pills" help with these.

Actually it has been proven over and over again.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... tudy-revea

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... how-placeb

And an entire article of mind magazine recently covered the whole topic:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-the-mind

I have a subscription highly recommend it to anyone.

--Infy

i can't remember what hospital or study it was, but it was on a bbc documentary a few years back...

6 people with the same knee problem...
3 got taken into surgery and had it "fixed"
3 got taken into surgery put under by gas, and then everyone just kinda waited...though they did open the knee so there was stitching etc...

they were monitored/tracked just the same, visits to the doctors etc - the 3 that had the placebo surgery all said they felt much better and showed a big improvement...

2 out of the 3 that had proper surgery had to have further surgery, the other one felt no difference...

now, im not saying this proves anything one way or the other, but it was all done scientifically, they used the same doctors/surgeons etc...

however, what i like about these kinds of tests is that people who poo-poo such things, then go into a massive knee jerk reaction and start doubting the scientific nature of the study, even though its fufilled all the criteria that they stated in the first place...

i love people like that...they're good as mentalism participants too...

IAIN wrote:no, ask them if there's been any of your double-blind tests done, or for any other proof...scientific is scientific...

why not make contact if you really want to know? i would...

it wont make a blind bit of difference though, but nethertheless, you'll get "an answer"....

i would have thought that organisation, or one similar would be involved in the testing....

It's a little like going to a tobacco company and asking if for research into smoking and cancer.

Surely better to ask BMJ, Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist etc as if they have published any research it's more likely to be unbiased.

I prefer impartial people's views on things. As you can see from this thread, hypnotherapists seem to get awfully tense when questioned...

well then, rather than go on about it on here, go and email them! this is frustrating me for some reason...



I'm sure you are enjoying the provoking, just a little, on some level...



the whole thing with your tobacco analogy though is, is that hypnosis has only ever helped people (by whatever means)...i've never heard of anyone ultimately, being helped out by smoking cigarettes long term...

it does sound like you have something against hypnosis personally though, i must say...but maybe this forum isnt the place to find all your answers? i dunno...just asking the question tahts all...

Infinite wrote:Actually it has been proven over and over again.

Have a close look at the articles you linked to. You'll find phrases like "Findings published today in the journal Science offer fresh evidence in support of the existence of a placebo effect" and "observation has led some researchers to propose that up to 75 percent of the apparent efficacy of antidepressant medicine may actually be attributable to the placebo effect."

This indicates that the placebo effect exists to some extent. It does not prove it once, let alone over and over again.

Once again this is the laymen version of prove.

Technically there is no proof in any scientific endeavor. there is simply an explanation. One that may or indeed must change if the observable criteria change.

So from a scientific standpoint the placebo effect is akin to the black hole or even gravity. We have a model that can accurately predict the outcome of a specific set of criteria. The underlying mechanism for why that explanation works is still being agreed upon.

In the very real sense of the word the placebo effect is proven. It would now need to be disproven by invalidating the current placebo theory.

So while you may in fact be a scientist unless you actually are one you can't argue proof in a scientific setting. If you are then by all means please give me the criteria of proof you are basing your point of view on.

If you are not then please feel free to ask one if my interpretation is correct I'm sure they will agree.

Its the most frustrating thing in science this bit about proof vs theory and the misconception that a theory is somehow not as good as "proof" when in fact a theory is proof.

People confuse theory with hypothesis ALL the time. Hypothesis are untested and thus always suspect. Theory's are models that have proven accurate over hundreds of tests.