I agree.



Yes, this is part of what I intended to say, though actually while I was writing I re-focused my position on more defensible territory; my actual belief goes further than the above statements, but the above statements are easier to demonstrate.



I think you are using the phrase 'mental state alone' in the sense of 'mental state without changes in physical habits', and I disagree with your position. (This ought to be a conversation about evidence, but at the moment you've caught me having a conversation about beliefs, without evidence...I hope you will listen anyway) To clarify, I believe that two people can have the same genes, eat the same food, take (or not) the same drugs, do the same exercise, and go to sleep/wake at the same time... and yet might experience dramatically different results in their healing due to the effect that thinking has on our body's processes.

I do not believe that the statement-of-thought makes the difference - you cannot hand a printed card to someone and say 'think the thoughts written here' and be guaranteed those thoughts will influence their healing. That may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but lets say hypothetically that 'being in a relaxed state aids healing'. I believe a person can definitely 'think' themselves into a deeply relaxed state, but having a person recite specific thoughts is no guarantee they will enter that relaxed state. In this sense, it isn't the thought-statements by themselves that make the difference; yet it can still be the pattern or tone or even deliberate direction of one's thinking which can make a difference.

You seem to agree that our thoughts can lead to sleep loss, and sleep loss can lead to diminished healing capacity; it is by similar mechanisms that I think 'thinking in general' can effect healing around the clock. You recognize the difference between 'sleep' and 'non-sleep' as well as the difference between 'restful sleep' and 'restless sleep'; I assert there is also a difference between 'deeply restful, healing-oriented wakefulness' and 'agitated, anxious wakefulness' - and that this difference can effect our immune response.

So, here I've gone on and on about my worldview.... where is my non-anecdotal evidence? By what mechanism might this operate?

I am lacking in non-anecdotal evidence, but as far as mechanism - if I remember correctly, I believe there are hormones released by the brain which regulates where a body's overall hormonal/nervous activities, which can be said to lie somewhere along the spectrum from 'sympathetic' to 'parasympathetic'. This 'spectrum between two states' may be an oversimplification, but it points us in the direction of a mechanism by which thinking can more directly effect healing, but ONLY if our thoughts effect the regulatory hormones.

I am still writing about hypothetical and beliefs - I may return to this thread later with evidence, if I have time and if I can find it.




Topical relevance is absolutely key, as well as differentiating between 'knowledge of simple and simply verifiable facts' vs 'opinions about what might be true, or what might be a good way to do something'. Even being thus twice removed from the context of the original implication regarding 'faith in people with doctorates', I still hold that we ought not to assume that formal education automatically gives value to an individual's opinions.

I think they can be critical, but they aren't necessary. The body heals itself naturally, its enough to create favorable circumstances on the physical plane and let the body do its thing.



I agree, and I think even Mikebert would agree as long as we are talking about worries->behaviors->lifespan (vs worries->lifespan). For me, it is worries->internal biochemistry->lifespan.




Do you mean to imply that if you don't believe in western medicine, it won't help you? I think the evidence suggests otherwise.




I don't think that belief in a witch doctor will cause the bones in a compound fracture to line up perfectly while mending. Sometimes a little mechanical adjustment is necessary.

But you said 'help', and I suppose that is true; but that doesn't place 'witch doctor' and 'medicine' on equal footing, as the symmetry of your statements might imply.



I think of alternative medicine as 'that which is not recognized by mainstream medicine'. Some alternative medicine is decidedly unnatural, and mainstream medicine relies heavily on natural processes.



This seems to be a theme we can all agree with, in some way. Unless the 'sides' are 'proven to work' and 'proven to not work'. Some of what is called 'alternative medicine' has been proven to have some positive benefits.

I think we're arguing the same thing here - I was steering clear of the 'obvious' biochemical route because I simply don't know enough to back up my claims in that area. But, from what I do understand, state of mind (relaxed, anxious etc) is a surprisingly chemical process. In which hormones play an important, even core role.

Two interesting articles on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1502887/pdf/califmed00035-0019.pdf
-Especially the section titles 'Mood' which lays out the evidence for serotonin being core to our perception of reality - and indeed our ability to feel anxiety, panic, fear, happiness etc :)

http://www.healthyplace.com/anxiety-panic/main/the-biochemistry-of-panic/menu-id-69/
-on Biochemistry and mood more generally

I'm sorry for the double-post folks, but I read this just now and a notion occurred to me :)

The quote (The Guardian, 23rd Febuary 2010, Page 7)



Now, is it that they believe that tiny amounts of the knowledge of the NHS spending on homeopathy, when diluted with copious amounts of bureaucracy will, over time, actually manage to teach us as much if not more than just simply keeping track of spending in the first place?

Are we seeing homeopathic principles leak into governance?

Irrelevant though it is, the remainder of the article is reporting on a call to withdraw funding for homeopathic medicine within the NHS.

M

MPs deliver their damning verdict: Homeopathy is useless and unethical
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/feb/22/mps-verdict-homeopathy-useless-unethical

Thanks for this :)

So your now saying that if only I had a personal experience where I had my health at odds with a companies bottom line I might understand . . . well duh. The question is, have you? What happened? Did you sue? If not, why?


I have..otherwise I wouldn't have said such a thing..and the details are none of your god damn business... don't you think if I wanted to share those details with you I would have..duh!

How can your health be at odds with a companies bottom line? It can only hurt a company to harm people, it's very bad PR to kill your patients for one, let's not even go into the lawsuits and fines that can start to rear their ugly heads.

How cynical do you need to be to think that someone, somewhere, has looked at a case and said "Naww, we'll let this one suffer/die - it's an expensive drug anyway."

Sure things slip through the corporate net, but at every stage I can pretty much guarantee that there is a massively overwhelming majority of the people just wanting to do the right thing for as many people as possible.

As for the details of this situation being none of my business, I quite agree - I can't think of a point where I asked for any such personal information from you.

However, I -have- had to undergo several fights with various quirks of NHS budgeting in order to get treatment both for myself and for close family. Though it frustrated and occasionally angered me, I never once saw a situation where the 'big evil pharmaceuticals' even manifested themselves. Hell, I even approached Pharmacia Corporation directly asking if they would supply a drug to my local hospital for an illness of my brothers - they were very helpful, even though providing the drug didn't make financial sense.

So, keeping things genial as best I can, what exactly are you trying to say?

M

That isn't directed at you Mike..I just didn't use the quotes right because it stuff back in the conversation that keeps getting quoted over and over. I exited the thread just fine with where we left it. I came in to read and saw that I am still being quoted and quizzed.
The top part of that is someone who quoted me...the bottom is my response to it. I think throwing a "duh" out is rude and childish..so much for your grown up debate. Sorry I didn't use the quotes right and threw ya off. I can see how that wouldn't make sense to ya. I'll say out of your thread. If people want to continue to quote and question me..that so be it, I won't come in and answer.

So its an anecdote, that you will not even share, but you mentioned it, so I must assume you want poeple to believe you . . .

Pardon me if I remain skeptical of your ability to discern efficacy. Confirmation bias works in just such ways, without blinding you cannot have proper evidence of efficacy, which is just the same sloppy controls or lack thereof used by researchers in favor of acupuncture, or homeopathy.

Its easy to say, "it worked for me", and not take the time to make sure it was actually an effect of the "medicine" consumed.

Without a large RCT you cannot be sure what you are seeing is really of significance, or just placebo, or coincidence.

The thing is . . . large RCT's have been done . . and found NOTHING!

Homeopathy, there is literally nothing to it.
Reiki, there is literally nothing to it.
Accupuncture, there is literally nothing to it.
You can drink water all you want, you can poke your skin with needles, or heck even sham needles, think about your navel or heck other peoples navels . . its not healing anything that a sugar pill cant heal.

I don't feel the need to discuss my private matters in this forum. Do you feel that in order for me to have and post my thoughts on big pharma I also need to post my medical records? Shall we all openly banter over your medical history, would you like to share some of with us? Have you ever contracted a sexually transmitted disease and want to tell us all about it? Do you really think you are of enough importance that I would feel a need to attempt proving anything to you...is my life so important to you or are you just bored with your own?

Bah, read it all wrong, got all bothered

And don't go running off just yet - you've got so much to add to the debate!



Damm right. This isn't about proving anything to anyone - most of us are set enough in our own views for such attempts to be futile. Keep it above the belt people, and keep it interesting.

Dear me, this thread does amuse me, if nothing more.

Michael, you are a charming man w/ an obvious voracious appetite to learn and grow. I salute and commend you on your obvious lifetime journey of edification. Clearly, to be a licensed, commercial pilot at your tender age is proof positive of your determination, dedication, abilities and sheer intelligence!

I venture to guess we share similarities of both being gifted w/ extremely high IQs and a scholarly disposition that revealed itself from a very early, tender age. Carry on! And? We should talk ...

Now, and also, I came into the thread to shed more than the academic light being broadcast by you gentleman lot participants. As said, I represent a three+ decade history as scholar, practitioner and recipient in Natural Medicines. Truth is that the scholarly aspect actually spans 4 and a half decades studying Natural Medicines. One of my very first books was my mother's college botany text. My career was predetermined by the age of 5!

I'm currently, better putting my writing energy into a Natural Medicines Handbook - that I'm in the throes of scripting. As such, I've not at all come to debate, as I stand confidently on such solid ground. (Though you all demonstrate such impeccable splitting and answering quotes qualities, kudos, hehe ...) My background has well married the academic to the experiential, and I presented such.

How can I grow from you lads solely offering unrounded, academic informationals? No real edification of my previous knowledge has thus far been offered, as none of your contributions derive from your own clinical experiences, as clinician - nor client.

My views were earned and something I'll share - but not harp upon, nor dissect. My positions are grounded and founded, simply put. I've enough confidence to only seek more knowledge and growth, not to argue the structure of the underpinnings of my lifelong career.

Respectfully, If you'd like more knowledge, the level of intelligence displayed in this thread affords me the appraisal that you all understand the exact inner workings of seeking out this education, and REALLY should! The body's mechanics and how to care for it/them should be taught to a PhD level firstly, imo. All other academia would better follow suit w/ this as foundational. You can get there from here ...

This is shop talk, and quite frankly, none of you are in my 'shop'. I'm speaking to persons of other crafts, curious and opinionated about mine. Do accountants or mechanics or computer analysts or pilots (etc) spend their down/recreational time chatting w/ lay people about the machinery of their craft? Quid pro quo; bizness is best expanded w/ colleagues, yeah?

I learned long ago that my career necessarily fascinates, and I will point non-clients in the right direction to seek out the truth and answers... Which I have done here in my op. My every conversation in life would involve my work, otherwise.

That said ... *sigh* ... Lil residual niggles stick w/ me here:

1. Glad we all seem to agree Homeopathy be lynched at high noon from the tallest tree! Burn the train, kill the beast!

2. Poppy C0ck! Acupuncture is definitely a viable modality. What needs be understood, EVEN by persons in my craft: It is an Electrical Application that will only have efficacy when the root cause of symptomatology is Bio-Electrical in causal nature. Give me the grant funding and let her rip, bring it - I have proven this time and again, and would treasure the ability to head a huge study. (Licks lips ...) That said, causation is rarely electrical in nature, thus, acupuncture routinely fails in these other than electrically caused circumstances, by definition.

3. Tea Tree Oil - It has the OPPOSITE of moisturizing ability. It is one of the most skin membrane, drying agents known. If it quickly cleared a lesion, by definition that lesion was other than eczema, psoriasis or dermatitis! Tea Tree would greatly, horribly exacerbate any of these conditions - NEVER cure them. That the spot cleared is evidential that there likely was a microbial pathogen produced infection, be it bacterial, fungal or viral. Self diagnosed eczema cleared by Tea Tree oil was an inaccurate diagnosis. Period.

4. Doctorate in Chemistry as regards The AromaTherapists in France. The French Practitioner's Clinic/Laboratory will employ 40 different varieties of Lavender, according to the chemical nature of the problem, chemical nature of the lavender species best corresponding to. The most ridiculous assertion I've read in this ENTIRE thread ... is that one should question, above all others, the competence of a Qualified Specialist w/ a Doctorate that is being applied to their own field of expertise! Seriously? Attitude adjustment required to proceed ... NEXT!

Carry on then...

Edit ... Poppy C0ck then, that the asterisk bots not descend upon the thread and relegate this to Fork 'n' Dork banishment!

Flattery, my dear, will get you anywhere



I'm with you until the pilot bit - I've not met a Pilot yet who wouldn't talk flying for days on end to anybody and everybody who'll listen! Preferably waving his/her hands in the air to demonstrate the more tricky aspects...

We're a hopeless bunch

But onto more serious matters (and back to topic) - you've a wealth and depth of experience in the field that blows most of us clean out of the water, and you've the intelligence to read my (and others) ramblings for what they are.

I take my hat off to thee

I'm going to jump about here, but stuff keeps occurring to me, and so I apologise if it's a little jumbled :p




I think we've just about settled this one - it's a load of tosh, and officially so.

Calls are being made to remove it's funding within the NHS. Funding estimated to be nearly £50million - think what that money could've done if spent on cancer research or, something that I feel is tragically, criminally underfunded - alzheimer's research.



I quite agree that Human Biology ought to be taught to a much higher level than it currently is. If only to educate people on how their bodies work, and to help them navigate through this maze of information and counter information in which we spend our daily lives.

However, you really can't ask all high-end academics to study it in depth, take a high-energy physicist (I know a couple), for them to get the hang of all basic bodily functions would detract from valuable time better spent optimising the code for the next forecast. That's simply not feasible.

Jesting aside, greater education -is- needed.



The point made, I thought, was that an irrelevant high-level qualification places you on par with the layman. If the PhD'd-up Aromatherapists in question all studied Hormonal Chemistry or Bio-Chemistry or similar and they can directly relate their knowledge to their everyday practices then I can't see how that can be wrong. Pending discoveries on the effectiveness of said therapies, of course.

Waving a PhD shouldn't gain you any great credence in any field other than the one you studied. However, it does demonstrate the holder clearly having the drive, intelligence and ability to study for and attain said qualification. I've never met a career academic who wasn't immensely intelligent and informed on a range of subjects and a pleasure to talk to - mostly because of that hunger for information and a desire to learn.



Bio-electricity? I thought we got shot of that notion was dismissed back in the 18th century thanks to Alessandro Volta debunking Luigi Galvani's experiments on 'animal electricity'.

Ok, I'm twisting things to my own benefit here. I couldn't resist

Neural transmission takes place electrically. Electrical activity has been at the core of diagnosis techniques for a while now, take ECG's for example (Electro CardioGram) or look at the various forays into controlling computers using thought. Just why do we have to be all mystical about it? If it works and has a benefit then we should be incorporating it into already fantastically successful main-stream medicinal practice. Let's loose the mystic nature and discover what it is that makes these things either work, or appear to work - and lets give it to doctors and consultants and nurses and academics and lets see if we can't in some small way, make life better for people.

I would love to have the reported benefits of some of these theories - but only if can we skip all the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo that seems to accompany them and only if we can prove that the therapies have an actual effect.

We need RCT's, we need real double-blind trials. We need to look into the biology and chemistry and psychology behind these things and we need to methodically throw out the bullcrap and use that which we find effective.

If I were holding the purse strings, Dancere, you'd get your grant.




and lastly (because my ego can't resist :p)


I was a bright kid, aye - though my IQ isn't all that high. I'm just not clever in an IQ-ish way I guess. Last time I measured it properly I must've been 18, and it fell short of Mensa-entry then *sigh*.

I rely on intellect a lot - it kind of defines who I am and how I cope with things. If I have a big upset, if something major goes wrong in my life it's reasoning and thinking it through that pulls me back up. As a result or maybe as a symptom, I seem to have an abnormal capacity for empathy which can screw with me emotionally a fair bit. For example, when I broke up with my last Girlfriend I was sat there comforting her, I could see exactly why she did what she did and I couldn't, simply couldn't summon any anger. She was almost more torn up than I. All this after she cheated on me. We're still close friends.


Why the confessional? Well, I reckon you're operating along similar lines - from the profile comprised of lyrics (I love it, by the way) through your style of writing and on to the skilful manner in which you place your arguments. I think it comes, as you so neatly diagnose, from having a hunger for knowledge from a very early age, bookishness even.


Tell me, what's the longest time you've been without a 'current' book? Since I learnt to read aged 5, I've had one stretch of 10 days when I didn't have access to a book. It was torture.


'course, this might just all be a massive ego-trip.. hell, I like travelling

Swoon, I do love an intelligent, intellectual charmer ...

And, touché on the pilots go on forever (and a year!) schtick! *Groannnnnn*

My Father was a jet pilot - and I grew up on air strips and in Officer's Clubs.

I've yet to get the smell of jet fuel, cigars and scotch out of my hair and clothes!

Dearheart, my mind is toast.

Still, I imagine you KNEW you'd hook me w/ this last entry of substance.

Just wanted to pointedly, MINDLESSLY play in the forums tonight though.

I shall return; put the kettle on, love ...

…kind of like the thought process behind your post


Are you trying to convince us - or yourself? Tell it to the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health who said:

“Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be MORE than placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea.”

Homeopathy......

'Natural' medicine.




I love the challenge some have reconciling the obvious.

This societal need to over ride everything and anything, to baffle with bs, and to 'control'....that which effectively and efficiently functions with minimal, almost non invasive treatments....the human, being.


Hiya Kate, Sainted Knickerless of the 12th Realm..

However, they also say:


http://vsearch.nlm.nih.gov/vivisimo/cgi-bin/query-meta?query=Homeopathy&imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0&v%3Aproject=nlm-main-website

in other words, I'm unable to find a reference to to quote you give, and the closest I can find to it in sentiment from that body is guarded in the extreme. Can you quote source?


... revise the above, I found the quote I think...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853874



I do wish people wouldn't take quotes out of context...

Who would want to?!

I grew up on RAF stations, I know the life. Ahhh Happy times :)