Page 1 of 1
Placebo and Delusions
Posted:
February 2nd, 2008, 5:44 pmby baby_jessica75
I have seen many times in these forums people using the terms placebo and delusions to describe the out come of files to people who believe the files to be working for them. What I don't understand is why anyone else cares if the person using the file is delusional if what they believe makes them happy? if a friend meets a significant other and frinds true happiness with them and truely thinks that they are very attractive when in reality they look somewhat like a story tale troll (sorry for those who find trolls attractive just not my taste!) would it be right for us to push our viewpoint across to this person and ruin thier happiness just to pull them back to what we believe reality to be? who deciedes who's reality is real anyway? who is the true judge of reality? or is reality just what the majority of the population agrees to be reality? and as far as placebo people have commented that this is placebo and that is placebo because it did not work for them now my question for that is does something have to work the same for everyone for it to work? if this is the case then can someone explain to me why thier are so many anti-depressants on the market? a doctor will tell someone that if this pill doesn't work then they will find one that does so does that mean that all of these pills are just placebos? if something works for someone and they are happy with the results that they get in thier lives from it than does it really matter why or how it worked for them? to me if someone is happy with how a file affected them than doesn't it mean that the file was a positive experience if for no other reason it made them happy? if someone believes a file is going to do what they want done in thier lives and they are happy about finding it isn't this a positive experience if for no other reason that it brought them some happiness for a little while? isn't the chance for happiness worht the risk of maybe future disappointment? or are all of these things delusions I just choose to hang on to? you be the judge!
Posted:
February 2nd, 2008, 6:14 pmby BobbyS
A friend once told me thought cough sweets didn't really do anything and any ease they caused was purely a placebo effect. I said "so what if it still helps your sore throat?".
As to whether hypnosis itself is a placebo effect, I would actually argue that it is since so much expectation of what the hypnosis will be like and how it will affect you CAN actually influence how the hypnosis pans out. That said, scientific research has been conducted into the hypnotic state and although we don't know why we have it or why we'd need it, we do know it's there.
Ultimately though, like I said at the start of the post - who cares whether it's real or not. As long as you get the effect you wanted from hypnosis (without any downsides) that's all that matters.
Posted:
February 2nd, 2008, 7:10 pmby baby_jessica75
BobbyS wrote:As to whether hypnosis itself is a placebo effect, I would actually argue that it is since so much expectation of what the hypnosis will be like and how it will affect you CAN actually influence how the hypnosis pans out.
correct me if I'm wrong please but a placebo effect is something working only because the person thinks it will then the best we can expect in hypnosis is a placebo effect because that is what hypnosis is designed to do then is it fair to call it a placebo effect because it is doing its intended purpose to begin with? you'll have to excuse me I need to lay down I just confussed myself!
Posted:
February 2nd, 2008, 9:10 pmby steve14
baby_jessica75 wrote:BobbyS wrote:As to whether hypnosis itself is a placebo effect, I would actually argue that it is since so much expectation of what the hypnosis will be like and how it will affect you CAN actually influence how the hypnosis pans out.
correct me if I'm wrong please but a placebo effect is something working only because the person thinks it will then the best we can expect in hypnosis is a placebo effect because that is what hypnosis is designed to do then is it fair to call it a placebo effect because it is doing its intended purpose to begin with? you'll have to excuse me I need to lay down I just confussed myself!
yep that sounds right ...
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 12:48 amby bdbu
the reason it gets brought up so much here is because half the people never actually go into trance and just role play. a quick look at the "show me your..." photo galleries is more than enuff prove of that. but honestly there is a huge different between using binaural beats and true hypnosis. the effects of binaural beats on the brain are purely hypothetical and made up by hippies who think waking life is a good movie and kid a is an awesome album.
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 1:28 amby baby_jessica75
bdbu wrote:the reason it gets brought up so much here is because half the people never actually go into trance and just role play. a quick look at the "show me your..." photo galleries is more than enuff prove of that. but honestly there is a huge different between using binaural beats and true hypnosis. the effects of binaural beats on the brain are purely hypothetical and made up by hippies who think waking life is a good movie and kid a is an awesome album.
honestly I was not meaning to attack your point of view on binaural beats seeing that thread just reminded me of alot of the attitudes I have seen. I do not know enough about binaural beats to actually comment on that particular subject. other than that i do use binaural beats very frequently and they do seem to help me relax but I do use inductions with all of the files so the effects of binaural beats may be just in my head but if it is not broke don't fix it right? I guess most of what i am bothered by is the opinions giving about hypnosis not being able to do this or that and those opinions being giving as fact. and the reason I say opinions is it is funny but it really seems to be a major paradox that there is no scientific evidence to state one way or the other by a reputable scientist as to what the limits of hypnosis are because a reputable scientist would never do a study as to weather or not it is possible to actually change the human body with the use of hypnosis because any reputable scientist would stand with the opinion that such an experiment would be a waste of time because they believe there would be no results. so we are left to form our own opinions as to what is possible then if we form the opinion that these things are possible we are insulted and berated for not agreeing with someones elses opinions as to what is and is not possible. I am sorry to anyone who may disagree with this but I don't care how much education a person has I refuse to degrade myself by automatically thinking that thier opinion is more valid then my own just because they have studied a certien field. the funny part of this is when those of us who believe that these things are possible state our opinions we are asked for clear scientific proof that these things can be done and other then my personal experiences with changes that have taken place with myself I have none to fall back on I know the shrinking has happened for me because my wife and some friends have witnessed it but then all you have is my word for that and I don't expect anyone to believe me because all I am to any of you is a name on a web page. and the true crux to this is if all of what I want to change does change I would never come forward to prove it because I don't want poked and prodded forever by scientist trying to disprove what has happened just because they don't understand or believe it. sorry I didn't mean to go on forever like that
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 5:00 amby BobbyS
bdbu, can you leave binaurals out of this? This is a thread pondering whether HYPNOSIS is a placebo effect.
As for roleplay, that's NOT the same as a placebo effect. A placebo effect is when someone gets the effect they were expecting from something that didn't actually do anything.
To jessica - with regards to my post - perhaps a quick revision is in order. I'd say hypnosis CAN be a placebo effect to an extent. People who expect hypnosis to be a very powerful thing can sometimes go very deep purely due to their own expectations. So in that respect it is like a placebo.
That said, it isn't a requirement that you expect anything of hypnosis to be able to be hypnotised.
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 10:38 amby bdbu
i thought this was in response to me thats why i clarified that binaurals and hypnosis are way different. and i mention role players because thats what generates so many skeptics.
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 11:18 amby baby_jessica75
I will post these here as well to maybe clear up the binaural situtation
[url]http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:mumW-ZlcK7UJ:www.cosmicegg.org/binaural%2520beat.pdf+binaural+beats+scientific&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us [/url]
[url]http://www.centerpointe.com/about/articles_research.php[/url]
I can not attest to the validity of this research and I am not in any way saying this proves anything for sure but I figured I would do my due dilligance and see what I could find on the subject. the only suggestion I can give anyone about binaurals is give them a try with an open mind and if they work for you use them and if they don't don't use them. don't depend on scientific reasearch to make up your mind for you. because everyone admits that each person is differant (even doctors and scientist) so just because something did or did not work for the majority of people in the control groups they used it may have nothing to do with how it will affect a unique person such as yourself (whoever you may be)
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 11:26 amby baby_jessica75
bdbu wrote:i thought this was in response to me thats why i clarified that binaurals and hypnosis are way different. and i mention role players because thats what generates so many skeptics.
As far as with you thinking this topic was in responce to you I can understand that in your shoes I would have come to the exact same conclusion. as far as what generates so many skeptics I believe I can link being a skeptic with the consuption of breakfast. most people eat breakfast therefore the majority of skeptics eat breakfast so by current scientific standards with most of the studies they do I can say conclusivly that eating breakfast is one of the leading causes of being a skeptic. (sorry I just feel that a sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste!)
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 1:54 pmby bdbu
the problem with binaurals is the science behind them suggests that it should work the same for everyone. i mean a theta wave is a theta wave and a sine wave is a sine wave there isnt any variables that would make it work for one person or another. unlike hypnosis which depends on ur own mind a lot.
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 2:03 pmby baby_jessica75
I do have a serious question about weather the placebo effect is real or not. the study says that the majority of the people who felt relief from symtoms were only on a subjective basis as to weather they felt better. but is it not true that with many aliments that even with medical treatments the outcomes would be based on how the person felt after treatment so if we are going to dismiss the placebo effect because of this wouldn't it mean that we would have to dismiss the medical treatments on the same grounds? and it also states that the occurance of something non-subjective like blood pressure was low which means it did happen and if it did happen it would mean that it is possible wich would mean that even though it is unlikly to be a valid treatment for everyone it was a valid treatment for some so it would be wrong to dismiss it completely just on the idea that it is rare. I guess what confusses me is just that we dismiss things on the idea that the sucess was not wide spread but isn't limited sucess still sucess all the same? does it not seem that we are saying that just because it isn't what is the majority of the results then it is somehow invalid. I personally feel that if I was aware of one person in the world who had been scientifically proven to change gender through hypnosis then that would let me know that it was humanly possible even if one hundred people who tried could not reproduce the results. so I pose the question once again does something have to work for everyone for us to accept that it is possible?
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 2:57 pmby baby_jessica75
bdbu wrote:the problem with binaurals is the science behind them suggests that it should work the same for everyone. i mean a theta wave is a theta wave and a sine wave is a sine wave there isnt any variables that would make it work for one person or another. unlike hypnosis which depends on ur own mind a lot.
I'm just courious if in the people that say this doesn't work are they hooked up to an EEG while they are listening to the binaural file to see if thier brian waves are being influenced or is it just that they don't get the effects that they want? if it is the latter of the two couldn't hypnosis be dismissed for the same reason? and also you do have to remember that some people brians fuction differently than others so could this be considered a variable? just wondering! and one last thing to consider is that in most of the "findings" in the "scientific" studies they state that a persons moods can affect the outcome of the binaurals. these are just some things to consider but I do applaud you for looking for your own answers as to weather or not this works and not just relying on other to make your mind up for you. this shows that you are willing to use the mind you have and not just accept what you are told by others. forming your own opinions is the best use of the free will that you have.
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 9:31 pmby Henrique
bdbu wrote:the problem with binaurals is the science behind them suggests that it should work the same for everyone.
Hi there, ever heard of a Gauss Curve? Put the population in there. Some will not work with binaurals, some with quickly, and most of people just will need time.
Sry for bad english, almost sleeping in here.
Posted:
February 3rd, 2008, 9:42 pmby Wildsprite
bdbu wrote:the problem with binaurals is the science behind them suggests that it should work the same for everyone.
you are still arguing this? keep it in the other thread please this has nothing to do with your argument to which you presented no proof, and the original question in that thread was almost not answered cause of you
Posted:
February 4th, 2008, 9:42 pmby Jack
[url=http://skepdic.com/placebo.html]Read this[/url].
Everything is hypnosis.
Nothing is hypnosis.
I find it hilarious that all medications are tested against a hypnotic tool.[/quote]
Posted:
February 5th, 2008, 12:45 amby baby_jessica75
Jack wrote:Read this.
Everything is hypnosis.
Nothing is hypnosis.
I find it hilarious that all medications are tested against a hypnotic tool.
[/quote]
something i find funny is that what they don't mention is the fact that if the verious reasons they give for alternative explianations for the placebo working are true wouldn't it stand to reason in many of the cases where the real drugs work those same alternitive explainations could hold true?
Posted:
February 5th, 2008, 7:38 amby Darkmind
baby_jessica75 wrote:something i find funny is that what they don't mention is the fact that if the verious reasons they give for alternative explianations for the placebo working are true wouldn't it stand to reason in many of the cases where the real drugs work those same alternitive explainations could hold true?
Which is actually why things are tested against a placebo: They aren't considered to 'work' unless they succeed
more often. Basically they say that anything would have the placebo effects, and a drug isn't worthwhile unless it
also it's own level of effectiveness.
Posted:
February 5th, 2008, 8:50 amby baby_jessica75
ok but in a study where 30% of the people taking a placebo showed improvement and 60% of the people taking the medicine showed improvment. wouldn't it stand to reason that if one out of every three of the people on the placebo showed the same improvement that the 60% on the medicine. then at least 10% of the people on the medicine had what they refere to as a placebo effect so that would raise the placebo percentage up to 40%. shouldn't something like this be taken into account in these studies. alot of studies report that 30% or higher get better on the placebo so in other words you have a 40% chance of being able to heal or get better on your own without the risk of the drug. while handing out cabnits full of drugs the doctors should be obligated to point this out because I honestly believe that if it was widely known that these thing can and do cure themselves maybe a majority of people would choose to allow thier bodies to heal itself. thenagain maybe not. I do know that I haven't been to the doctor in ten years and I have felt great in those ten years I guess this is another one of those things of if it isn't broke don't fix it.
Posted:
February 5th, 2008, 9:31 amby BobbyS
ok but in a study where 30% of the people taking a placebo showed improvement and 60% of the people taking the medicine showed improvment. wouldn't it stand to reason that if one out of every three of the people on the placebo showed the same improvement that the 60% on the medicine. then at least 10% of the people on the medicine had what they refere to as a placebo effect
No - because that it is assuming that those same proportion of people on the medecine were getting their results from a placebo effect (regardless of the fact their changes WERE occuring from being given PHYSIOLOGICAL medecine). If you want to use research to back up a point, stick to what the results say and don't make assumptions - otherwise you defy the point of the research in the first place.
Posted:
February 5th, 2008, 9:28 pmby baby_jessica75
BobbyS wrote:ok but in a study where 30% of the people taking a placebo showed improvement and 60% of the people taking the medicine showed improvment. wouldn't it stand to reason that if one out of every three of the people on the placebo showed the same improvement that the 60% on the medicine. then at least 10% of the people on the medicine had what they refere to as a placebo effect
No - because that it is assuming that those same proportion of people on the medecine were getting their results from a placebo effect (regardless of the fact their changes WERE occuring from being given PHYSIOLOGICAL medecine). If you want to use research to back up a point, stick to what the results say and don't make assumptions - otherwise you defy the point of the research in the first place.
thank you for telling me how to form my opinions and how to state them but i think I am doing ok on my own. what I was trying to say is that the entire method that they use to come to thier conclusions is flawed. because we do not know how many people may have been getting results from what they consider a placebo effect. I wasn't stating that i knew an exact number I was saying that it is a possibility and that it stood to reason. I honestly have no desire to use scientific reasearch to back up a point because all scientific research seems to come to the conclusion that the majority is right when in reality things don't work that way. Even if it was conclusivly proven that we didn't need any of the medications being handed out so often it would never be reported because that means less money for the entire scientific and medical professions.
Posted:
February 6th, 2008, 5:17 pmby Darkmind
baby_jessica75 wrote:because we do not know how many people may have been getting results from what they consider a placebo effect.
But we do know. A (nearly) exact number.
The same number as in the placebo group.
Anyone
else who is getting results is getting results because of the effects of the medicine. That's the point of the trial. And, for that matter, one of the main points of the existence of the FDA.
Posted:
February 6th, 2008, 6:21 pmby Jack
I wonder if anyone has ever done any studies on how often there are "side effects" in the placebo groups, and what kinds(if any) are common to varying illnesses..
Posted:
February 6th, 2008, 6:38 pmby MN_FriendlyGuy
This thread of conversation has taken a series of interesting twists. I'd like to contribute another twist to the conversation.
Fairly recent studies at Texas A&M University showed some interesting (scientific) results about hypnosis.
Here's a simple test... Browse the list below. For each item on the list IGNORE the word. Do not read it. Instead, name the color of the letters.
Green
Green
Red
Blue
Green
Fun, huh?
The study at Texas A&M used EEG to measure brainwaves of hypnotized (and non-hypnotized) individuals. The results proved that the brains of hypnotized individuals responded in a way that some folks might call "delusional".
The hypnotized individuals had been told that they would be shown meaningless symbols. All they needed to do was push a button to identify the color of that symbol. For these individuals the results of the EEG showed the visual area of the brain that usually decodes written words did not become active. They did NOT read the words.
By comparison, the non-hypnotized individuals took longer before pushing a button to identify the color of each color-word. These folks DID read the words. And the 'decoding' done by their brains took time.
Yes - we could this a 'placebo' effect. After all, the hypnotized folks were told to believe something untrue. And the power of their minds allowed them to respond.
Weren't they the lucky ones?
Posted:
February 6th, 2008, 7:23 pmby baby_jessica75
Darkmind wrote:baby_jessica75 wrote:because we do not know how many people may have been getting results from what they consider a placebo effect.
But we do know. A (nearly) exact number.
The same number as in the placebo group.
Anyone
else who is getting results is getting results because of the effects of the medicine. That's the point of the trial. And, for that matter, one of the main points of the existence of the FDA.
ok maybe I am misunderstanding this. are you saying that in the group that they have on the "real" medication that they eliminate the number of people that had effects from placebo even though they are on "real" medicine. or are you saying thay they automatically assume that all of the effects are from "real" medicine and that it is supposed to be automatically accepted that what they consider "real" medicine doesn't induce any placebo effect? if I seem thick in this I'm sorry.
Posted:
February 6th, 2008, 7:28 pmby baby_jessica75
MN_FriendlyGuy wrote:This thread of conversation has taken a series of interesting twists. I'd like to contribute another twist to the conversation.
Fairly recent studies at Texas A&M University showed some interesting (scientific) results about hypnosis.
The study at Texas A&M used EEG to measure brainwaves of hypnotized (and non-hypnotized) individuals. The results proved that the brains of hypnotized individuals responded in a way that some folks might call "delusional".
The hypnotized individuals had been told that they would be shown meaningless symbols. All they needed to do was push a button to identify the color of that symbol. For these individuals the results of the EEG showed the visual area of the brain that usually decodes written words did not become active. They did NOT read the words.
By comparison, the non-hypnotized individuals took longer before pushing a button to identify the color of each color-word. These folks DID read the words. And the 'decoding' done by their brains took time.
Yes - we could this a 'placebo' effect. After all, the hypnotized folks were told to believe something untrue. And the power of their minds allowed them to respond.
Weren't they the lucky ones?
This is cool. does anyone think that maybe it is possible that since the hypnotic state is naturally accurring that maybe it is the minds way of recharging or maybe for kicking in the bodies natural healing cycles?? its just a thought!
Posted:
February 6th, 2008, 8:23 pmby Darkmind
baby_jessica75 wrote:ok maybe I am misunderstanding this. are you saying that in the group that they have on the "real" medication that they eliminate the number of people that had effects from placebo even though they are on "real" medicine. or are you saying thay they automatically assume that all of the effects are from "real" medicine and that it is supposed to be automatically accepted that what they consider "real" medicine doesn't induce any placebo effect? if I seem thick in this I'm sorry.
Statistically, I guess you could say they eliminate the number (or rather,
percentage) of people who had effects even though they were on the real medicine.
This is why you test against a placebo instead of just giving out the medicine: so you know how strong the placebo effect is in this case.
Posted:
February 6th, 2008, 9:25 pmby baby_jessica75
Darkmind wrote:This is why you test against a placebo instead of just giving out the medicine: so you know how strong the placebo effect is in this case.
ok I understand thank you for explaining it. in alot of ways I do still find these flawed one big one is for the fact that we know that we are all different but I do understand the reason for the method and weather it is flawed or not is just a matter of my opinion and I would not want to force it on anyone even if I could. I apoligize if I got too defensive in my points of view on this matterand offended anyone. just because my opinion is the right one for me doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me. thank you for the explanation I apperciate you all taking the time and having the patience.