talkmagic.co.uk

MagicalSmithy wrote:

mrgoat wrote:It bothers me when the vulnerable and desperate put hope in something surrounded by sketchy research.
.

Have you ever thought some people may put hope into something because they have nothing else...................we all have to believe something and aslong as that something is true to us...true in our hearts it does not matter as it will not hurt anyone else.

If you were talking about belief in angels, then I'm with you. If it actually costs nothing and some (albeit deluded) person feels better because she thinks she has an angel with her. Cool.

My issue is when people charge money to perform something that is SEEMINGLY no more effective than a sugar pill.

I prefer my faith to be in science. That's all.

Infinite wrote:Actually,

I really think you are using google wrong.

I've gotten 600 hits of double blind clinical trial using hypnosis for various reasons.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... is&spell=1

(US google)

Most of which are located at:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00798642

A whole site to clinical trials which you can put in "hypnosis" and have a blast.


I poked one of my doctor friends.

--Infy

Wow, that's great. Thanks, lots of reading there.

Wishmaster wrote:That's pretty much what I said in the other thread Infy. I think mrgoat is simply here to pick to pieces anything and everything, whether it's empirical or not. I have better things to do with my time than try proving something that's already proved.

If mrgoat would like to do some research, go right ahead. I've lost all interest in someone who doesn't really want the answers and is using this as a platform to deride and argue for the sake of arguing.

I'd love answers Wishmaster. It just doesn't seem there are any. I apologise if this has upset you. It wasn't my intention.

All I wondered was if there were any proper double blind clinical trials into the effecacy of hypnosis or NLP. Seems there aren't.

Infinite wrote:However we are unlikely to satisfy you MrGoat because we don't have access to the AMA's research digests because we are not doctors.

Yes, but research is published, right? I mean, if there was a clinical trial that proved hypnosis did more than a placebo would, then surely the BMJ, Nature, New Scientist etc would be all over it?

Or are you suggesting there *is* research that proves this, but for some reason it's secret?

Infinite wrote:We are also not here to prove that Hypnosis or NLP actually work.

I don't believe anyone said you were. I simply asked if there were any double blind clinical reviews. Doesn't look like there are.

Infinite wrote:However... here is a nice link to people who talk about all the studies regarding hypnosis analgesia.

http://www.institute-shot.com/hypnosis_pain_utility.htm

Yup, that was posted yesterday. Can't see any double blind tests in there?

Infinite wrote:I have referrals from Doctors and a nice relationship with two professional medical organizations. IF there is no clear medical reason for some things then Hypnosis does help.

--Infy

Yup. Loads of people are in the same boat. Lots of anecdotes, or personal experiences. Lack of actual double blind clinical trials as far as I can see though.

mrgoat wrote:Yup. Loads of people are in the same boat. Lots of anecdotes, or personal experiences. Lack of actual double blind clinical trials as far as I can see though.

You don't always use double blind protocols in psychology. Example: the effects of isolation on a subject. How do would you double blind that?

Tomo wrote:

mrgoat wrote:Yup. Loads of people are in the same boat. Lots of anecdotes, or personal experiences. Lack of actual double blind clinical trials as far as I can see though.

You don't always use double blind protocols in psychology.

You do in clinical trials to prove a treatment works or not though, don't you?
Which is what this is about.

mrgoat wrote:You do in clinical trials to prove a treatment works or not though, don't you?
Which is what this is about.

OK, how would YOU design a DB protocol for a clinical trial to measure what is a subjective experience?

Tomo wrote:

mrgoat wrote:You do in clinical trials to prove a treatment works or not though, don't you?
Which is what this is about.

OK, how would YOU design a DB protocol for a clinical trial to measure what is a subjective experience?

I'm not a doctor or PHd in medical research, but the idea of this clinical testing isn't new or demanding.

Let's say pain control:

group a) have real treatment of hypnosis
group b) have placebo treatment of CBT (ie a nice chat)
group c) have no treatment

All are randomised and performed double blind.

You then have a measurable amount of pain applied through whatever means.

(NB this could be utterly wrong, I'm not trained in this at all. I just find it interesting)

mrgoat wrote:NB this could be utterly wrong

Most of it, mate.

Tomo wrote:

mrgoat wrote:NB this could be utterly wrong

Most of it, mate.

Sigh.

I am starting to realise this is like asking people who believe in psychics to prove it works. They can't and get awfully stroppy about you asking the most simple, polite and straightforward questions. They seem to think you are attacking them personally when simply asking for a bit of evidence to prove their belief system has any legs.

It's really hot and I don't want to get into a pointless internet argument. I don't believe there's any respected randomised, double blind clinical trials.

I asked for proof. No one can provide any. Cool. That's that then.

Problem is, you seem to have latched onto this notion of double blind experiments. Yes, they're effective, but just because there aren't many examples of them for a specific topic (be it hypnosis or aspects of NLP) doesn't mean there aren't other kinds of research which are validated in other ways.

If you're really interested, get to the library, the book shop, specialist websites and find all the books on the matter you can; from the magazine articles to the pop-psych books to the textbooks. The latter won't be cheap, but if this is something you're really interested in finding a wide range of evidence and opinion on, you'll invest the money.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Renato wrote:Problem is, you seem to have latched onto this notion of double blind experiments. Yes, they're effective, but just because there aren't many examples of them for a specific topic (be it hypnosis or aspects of NLP) doesn't mean there aren't other kinds of research which are validated in other ways.

If you're really interested, get to the library, the book shop, specialist websites and find all the books on the matter you can; from the magazine articles to the pop-psych books to the textbooks. The latter won't be cheap, but if this is something you're really interested in finding a wide range of evidence and opinion on, you'll invest the money.

"Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

You misunderstand. I'm not interested in studying hypnosis, I'm interested in reading any research published in a respected medical journal that shows NLP or hypnosis to be more effective than a placebo. As yet, I can't seem to find any.

Sorry for any confusion.

Ahh. Apologies.

I blame a long day in the sun!

mrgoat wrote:I'm not interested in studying hypnosis, I'm interested in reading any research published in a respected medical journal that shows NLP or hypnosis to be more effective than a placebo. As yet, I can't seem to find any.

That's because there isn't any.

I'm not saying NLP and hypnosis are without use, but the things they are used for - curing phobias, making people lose weight etc. - aren't exclusive to NLP, and are certainly nothing beyond what a motivated communicator could do. And the idea of using them as a substitute for anesthetic for surgery is perverse.

I supplied a list of hundreds of clinical trials either completed or in the works for hypnosis and medical studies.

I would suggest we shift this discussion back to the value of hypnosis and NLP rather than its provability (it is proven mrgoat and company just have to either do the research or accept my proof and that others have presented)

Otherwise my friends we are going to see this thread locked.