Research, anyone?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on February 12, 2010 at 12:35pm

Hi,

There are a number of published peer reviewed studies that compared people being treated for depression with medication and talk therapy to people just being treated with antidepressants or people just getting talk therapy --

Lab conditions are not the best or only way to scientifically demonstrate the benefit or hypnosis with or without medication -- Simple outcome studies could provide evidence based data and conclusions.

Michael E.

Michelle Albright, C.H. said:

Maybe I am not understanding what point you are trying to convey?
At first, I thought that your concern was that asthma patients would be denied medication that they currently take to participate in a study involving the use of hypnosis.
But now that you state that "not most" asthma patients receive medications to control their symptoms, I'm not sure what the concern was?

You are not irritating me, I'm just trying to figure out what your point is. Please don't read anything combative into my posts, as that is not the spirit in which they are sent. I appologize if I am not effectively conveying the intended tone in my writing. I'll work on that.

Is it that you do not believe that a trial with strict adherence to scientific method is possible? I have no desire to debate, I'd like to see this as you are looking at it.

I agree with you that a trial with strict adherence to scientific method is what we're talking about here. There would be no point in conducting a trial otherwise, since results would not be credible. (And what would the point of that be? <-- that's a rhetorical question, as there would be no poiint.)

What would you consider to be rigorous, credible research in regard to hypnosis for the relief of asthma symptoms? I'm not challenging you, I'm merely asking your opinion of what (if any) sort of trial would yield credible results? How would you set it up if you were organizing the trial? For obvious reasons, it couldn't be double-blinded, but many trials are not, so I don't think that would adversely impact the credibility of the results. Do you think that this could be done?

I'm speaking purely in the hypothetical, so if you have any ideas you'd like to share, I'd like to hear them. I understand you have a medical background, so your perspective is especially valuable.

Thank you for your input. I appologize again if anything I stated earlier sounded crass or edgy, that was not my intent.



Henxy said:

Hi Michelle,

It's not the case that 'pretty much all asthma patients receive some medications to control their symptoms'. Many, but not most; looking at our figures.

I was talking about rigorous, credible research. Maybe you are not. Trials including medications use one medication versus another, or others, and have a control placebo group. As I said previously, if medications are involved with a hypnotherapy group, the improvement cannot scientifically be attributed to hypnotherapy. You stated you were talking about 'a trial with strict adherence to scientific method'; that is what I am providing you with.

I am not intending to irritate you here: I am sharing the benefit of my knowledge and experience. You, obviously, may choose to graciously accept this, or otherwise.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Collingwood on February 12, 2010 at 7:15pm

Very well put Ricky

ricky strode said:

Good luck. The scienitic method does not support many of the things that can be done with hypnosis. Hell, they still don't know why magnectics work and opinion versus verifiable opinions are much different. People can always come up with opinion that sound reasonable, but that does not make them credible or useful. In fact, I don't know wheter or not people know exaclty the possiblilities of anything in anything, because as long as you look at everything the same as you do now, instead of seeing everything as if it is completly new. Because it in reality really is and that is really just the begining to be able to make changes to ht we think reality really is.

Whats the point in proving things to people that want to believe it is not possible ? That is like trying to convert christians into satanist. What matters is what works and what doesn't. We know that regular therapy has a high failure rate and there is still a lot us as people do not know. So why not just explore and find out for yourself. Is there not enough of incentive in that in and of its self. Hell, book sells from what you find would do more than any funding would ever do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on February 13, 2010 at 5:09am

Rick, Ricky, et al,

I understand that scientific facts are not actually facts. I totally agree that it is best to keep changing with the ever changing world. I also realize that the scientific method can be corrupted to the point that peer reviewed research that has been published in the most respected journals is routinely discredited.

However, Corporate-and-Government-Science (C-&-G-S) owns the game. They own the field, they own the equipment and they pay the workers and players. But even more than that -- In this time and space C-&-G-S owns the public's mind and heart. Science Rules!

I want to work and play in the Mainstream arena. I want to reach and assist as many clients as possible. I also want to help reform the monster and I believe the best way to do that is from the inside.

Ricky-
Changing minds is our stock and trade -- Why not dazzle them with science -- Why not explore the different ways we can generate credible and sound scientific research and be true to our clients and "Art" -- It is possible to do innovative research -- outside of the box.
I think that is what Michelle had in mind, when she started this thread...

Warmest regards,

Michael E.

That is like trying to convert christians into satanist.

Or vice-versa --

=^..^=


Rick Collingwood said:

Very well put Ricky
ricky strode said:

Good luck. The scienitic method does not support many of the things that can be done with hypnosis. Hell, they still don't know why magnectics work and opinion versus verifiable opinions are much different. People can always come up with opinion that sound reasonable, but that does not make them credible or useful. In fact, I don't know wheter or not people know exaclty the possiblilities of anything in anything, because as long as you look at everything the same as you do now, instead of seeing everything as if it is completly new. Because it in reality really is and that is really just the begining to be able to make changes to ht we think reality really is.

Whats the point in proving things to people that want to believe it is not possible ? That is like trying to convert christians into satanist. What matters is what works and what doesn't. We know that regular therapy has a high failure rate and there is still a lot us as people do not know. So why not just explore and find out for yourself. Is there not enough of incentive in that in and of its self. Hell, book sells from what you find would do more than any funding would ever do.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page