Comment

Comment by Hugh Cole on October 6, 2011 at 2:09pm

I'd have to agree with Michael here. This is an interesting study and it's useful in a pretalk context. But in and of itself it proves nothing. The meaning of a communication IS the response it gets. Most certainly it shows a strong mind body connection. But in the end it's about the clients perceptions, constructs and belief systems. I certainly would not want to use a construct that had been tainted with less than positive results in a clients mind. Of course that is what a pretalk is all about ... setting positive expectations.

Comment by Michael Ellner on October 6, 2011 at 6:22am

Hi Marc,

With the understanding that suggestions can harm or heal --  I believe that hypnotic "surgery" is far safer than actual sugery.  The small study proves nothing, but it does suggest that there is an interface between the power of intent and how people follow or reject suggestions.

The study does not validate the position that it is impossible for a person to have a negative reaction to a mentally induced "surgery". It is possible, but I think most hypnosis experts would agree that it is very unlikely when the process is conducted by a skilled practitioner.

Comment by Marc Carlin on October 6, 2011 at 5:24am

So Michael and Hugh,  Do you think that this would validate that a mentally induced "surgery" would not have a negative impact on a hypnotized person.  That the body physically makes the healthy choice even if given suggestions that would undermine the natural healing mind?

Comment by Michael Ellner on October 4, 2011 at 6:59pm

I also found the research fascinating.  Hypnotists might note that although the people in the "suggestion" arm of the study had a reduction in pain their minds and brains did not follow the suggestion to dilate their arteries and instead constricted the arteries of the people in the suggestion group-- which was the right thing to do. Wow!

Snip: 

By measuring diameter stenosis, the study provides clinical evidence that the brain is able to influence the physiological systems, said Ronel. He also said the finding that the artery constricted despite patients being told that the "drug" would dilate their coronary arteries was surprising, but makes sense given that patients were healthy and did not have any evidence of coronary artery disease. The healthy coronary artery differs from the arteries of heart disease patients, he said, and reacted "logically" to the experiment through self- regulation. In healthy patients, a reduction in perceived stress reduces sympathetic activation, which results 

in vasoconstriction.

"Vasoconstriction, in this population, is an acute, healthy, normal reaction of the artery," said Ronel. 

Unsnip

Michael E.

Comment by Aaron Little on October 4, 2011 at 10:04am

This is just what I needed to back up a conversation I am currently having with a friend.  Thanks for sharing this.