Hypnosis and hypnotherapy

[The Mighty Thor]

In another thread the poster HypnoPsi says that hypnosis and hypnotherapy can do no harm.

What do you think about this area. Is it science or pseudoscience, and is it benign?

[The Don]

If something is safe then it can't be effective and vice versa.

So if it has an effect it cannot be 100% safe.

Here is a study which seems to indicate that hypnotherapy had an analgesic effect http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15277295

[Darat]

Well the study of it can definitely be scientific. �

For me what is of concern is the extravagant claims made by some practitioners and the fact that there is not (apparently) an understanding behind the practise of what it is they do to a “patient�.

For instance see this site:

http://www.thehypnotherapyassociation.co.uk/

Seems a "professional site" - here is a bit of what the visitor to the site can find, first of all their general introduction:

http://www.thehypnotherapyassociation.co.uk/about_hypnotherapy.html

About Hypnotherapy

Hypnotherapy is the key that enables the vast power of the mind to bring about positive changes .

In a nutshell hypnotherapy can generally help with any problem where you can't help yourself doing or thinking something that you don't want, or not being able to do something that you want to do, or where you are suffering emotionally in some way. Some physical problems too can be treated effectively by hypnotherapy.

...snip...


And what do the members (practitioners) of this association say they can do and what can they treat? All the following quotes are from the first member listed on their featured therapist list: (http://www.thehypnotherapyassociation.co.uk/featured_hypno.html)



...

She frequently helps clients with smoking cessation, weightloss, phobias, depression, stress/anxiety and irritable bowel syndrome.

...

Iain produces a CD called TranceFormer, which uses a technique which lowers the brainwave rhythms to a very precise level. The CD can be used to achieve very deep states of relaxation. It can be used not only by clients, but therapists too can use it to enhance their practice.

...

On his journey for continual personal development Alan has studied and gained qualifications in Anatomy and Physiology, Indian Head Massage, Manual Lymph Drainage, Sports Massage, Painless Spinal Touch, and is a Reiki Master. He also holds teaching qualifications. His Indian Head Massage training was conducted by Indian Masters and he was able to continue his training in India. Alan's Reiki training was by the direct descendants of the founders of Reiki.

...

Nicholas has been in practice as a clinical hypnotherapist for over 8years and although specialising in hypno-analysis to help clients with a wide range of emotional & sexual problems as well as anxiety & phobias, he also offers effective therapy for smoking cessation, weight control confidence-building etc.

...

Today, the beneficial value of Curative Hypnotherapy is being increasingly recognised, both by members of the medical profession and by the general public, and is acceptable treatment for all age groups from 7 years upwards

...

Apart form his work as a Hypnotherapist, John is an Allergy Therapist and is a member of the Instate for Allergy and Environmental Therapists. For this, John uses Applied Kinesiology for diagnosis and de-sensitizers are Homoeopathic preparations.

...

I am a hypnotherapist, counsellor, NLP teacher, self-hypnosis trainer. I practice hypnotherapy and teach self-hypnosis because I have learnt through my own direct experience that hypnosis is the quickest way to get the change made; the job done; the phobia released; the problem fixed.

...

Recent problems/conditions that I have had success in treating after only 1 or 2 session include stopping smoking, weight loss, sleeplessness, nail biting, pain reduction, scratching in sleep, confidence to pass driving test, seasonal depression and helping stop hard drug use.

...

I have also worked successfully with other problems such as compulsive buying, pain in the stomach (unexplained by specialist medical practitioners for 30 years), confidence to speak in public, chocolate dependency, fear of flying, fear of moths/spiders, mood swings, confidence and anxiety, confidence in sport, stress at work, anger, alcohol dependency, worry over public speaking (ie. best man speeches), ..................

I am willing to treat nearly anything that a client brings. Only on one occasion have I refused – a request to lose 1�2 a stone in a week (as I believe fast weight loss is unhealthy).

...

If you’re having trouble kicking the evil weed, as a specialist hypnotherapy practitioner, Marilyn Charlton can help you – in just one hour. she claims she can transform 60 a day puffers into placid non-smokers in only 60 minutes, which means you can quit in your lunch hour! Marylin uses an amazing new hypnosis system. Due to it’s phenomenal success, it is sweeping the nation. The system took over ten years to develop and is having an incredible success rate.

...

Marylin explains that “This unique, precise breakthrough technique combines hypnotherapy with a relatively new science know as Neuro Linguistic Programming.

...

[H'ethetheth]

Probably It's mostly damaging to the contents of ones wallet.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Darat
Well the study of it can definitely be scientific. �

For me what is of concern is the extravagant claims made by some practitioners and the fact that there is not (apparently) an understanding behind the practise of what it is they do to a “patient�.

For instance see this site:

http://www.thehypnotherapyassociation.co.uk/

Seems a "professional site" - here is a bit of what the visitor to the site can find, first of all their general introduction:



And what do the members (practitioners) of this association say they can do and what can they treat? All the following quotes are from the first member listed on their featured therapist list: (http://www.thehypnotherapyassociation.co.uk/featured_hypno.html)
These claims are not supported by the data. See Robert Baker's "Some Call It Hypnosis".
Also, anyone can call themself a "Hypnotherapist" without any training whatsoever, unlike other titles that require state licensing.
By the way, the same is true of "Psychotherapist".

[tonyb]

Since I work as a hypnotherapist (in the UK), perhaps I can answer this one.

Hypnosis is generally very safe, provided it's done by a qualified and competent practitioner. One area where it could be considered 'unsafe' is if some form of regression therapy is badly applied, which could potentially lead to False Memory Syndrome. Done properly, however, regression can be safe and highly effective.

Jeff Corey is right that anybody can call themselves a hypnotherapist. Here in the UK the profession is self-regulated, so we do get our share of incompetents. Usually, these don't survive in practice very long. Even though it's self regulated, in order to practice professionally you need professional liabily insurance which itself means that you need to be a member of an established association and demonstrate that you've undertaken an accredited training course.

It seems that in the US the law varies from state to state.

I think a lot of the image problem with hypnosis is the way it's portrayed in movies, and the fact that some people associate it with woo-woo activities.

The way I usually explain hypnosis to my clients is that it's simply a form of communication that engages your imagination and feelings rather than the intellect and logic, just like most TV adverts do. So there's nothing magical or mysterious about it - just a technique of helping people become more receptive to beneficial suggestions or more easily able to recall and relate things that are bothering them.

It's really the techniques that are applied within hypnosis that do the work, rather than the hypnosis itself, hypnosis being used to help facilitate and usually speed up the process of change.

[Darat]

Highlight by me:

Originally posted by tonyb
Since I work as a hypnotherapist (in the UK), perhaps I can answer this one.

Hypnosis is generally very safe



Generally? And how do you know?

Originally posted by tonyb

, provided it's done by a qualified and competent practitioner.



And how is that qualification obtained, who ensures that the practitioner is competent?

Originally posted by tonyb

One area where it could be considered 'unsafe' is if some form of regression therapy is badly applied, which could potentially lead to False Memory Syndrome. Done properly, however, regression can be safe and highly effective.



Any evidence for this?

Originally posted by tonyb

Jeff Corey is right that anybody can call themselves a hypnotherapist. Here in the UK the profession is self-regulated, so we do get our share of incompetents.

Usually, these don't survive in practice very long.



Any evidence?


Originally posted by tonyb
Even though it's self regulated, in order to practice professionally you need professional liabily insurance which itself means that you need to be a member of an established association and demonstrate that you've undertaken an accredited training course.



Can you point me to where I can validate this?

Originally posted by tonyb

It seems that in the US the law varies from state to state.

I think a lot of the image problem with hypnosis is the way it's portrayed in movies, and the fact that some people associate it with woo-woo activities.

The way I usually explain hypnosis to my clients is that it's simply a form of communication that engages your imagination and feelings rather than the intellect and logic, just like most TV adverts do. So there's nothing magical or mysterious about it - just a technique of helping people become more receptive to beneficial suggestions or more easily able to recall and relate things that are bothering them.


You say "nothing magical" but what is/are the theoretical underpinning(s) of the therapy?

Originally posted by tonyb

It's really the techniques that are applied within hypnosis that do the work, rather than the hypnosis itself, hypnosis being used to help facilitate and usually speed up the process of change. [/B]

Again any evidence?

Sorry for the abrupt sounding repetition of a call for evidence but you've made a shed load of assertions in your post and since you are a practitioner of hypnotherapy I'm assuming you'll be able to lay your hands on the evidence quicker then I could.

[Rolfe]

I saw a hypnotherapist for anxiety attacks and it seemed to be effective. I later saw a psychologist (waiting times are like that) but by that time I was almost OK anyway.

Basically they psychologist told me to do things like slow measured breathing and imagine I was in a nice place doing nice things. The hypnotherapist actually made me do these things right there, by talking to me and describing the nice place, then told me to go away and do the same thing by myself.

Seemed to me they were coming from the same place and going to the same place, but the hypnotherapist had a head start because she made me do it rather than just telling me to do it.

Whatever, it certainly seemed to work for me.

But at the same time some of the other stuff the hypnotherapist told me she could do sounded like the purest of woo to me. (Like turning off a switch in people's heads that would stop them smoking.)

Rolfe.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Don
If something is safe then it can't be effective and vice versa. So if it has an effect it cannot be 100% safe.I, hypnopsi, who started this whole storm in a tea-cup, have to be honest here in saying that 'The Don' makes a very interesting point.

The very idea of a panacea is philosophically paradoxical - if something can effect change then it should be able to effect constructive or destructive change. I did read once that 'Transcendental Meditation' had been implicated (though nothing has been proven to my knowledge) in some kind of seritonin disorder, but apparently it was very rare and not too severe. (Weighing that against the evidence that something like TM can, for example, reduce high blood pressure.... and well, basically, you consider your options...)

Either way, if this is a possible risk of TM then it's only sensible to assume that it's a likely risk of self-hypnosis as well. (I fail to see how it could be produced from a few weekly sessions of hypnotherapy though.)

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Darat
Well the study of it can definitely be scientific. �

For me what is of concern is the extravagant claims made by some practitioners and the fact that there is not (apparently) an understanding behind the practise of what it is they do to a “patient�. For instance see this site: http://www.thehypnotherapyassociation.co.uk/ Seems a "professional site"For what it's worth, I live in the UK and seriously doubt the hypnotherapy association's claim to be "the largest independent professional body in Britain representing hypnotherapists in active practice."

Either way, this is just ultimately another 'trade association' like all the rest because there is no government recognised body for hypnothearpy in the UK currently.And what do the members (practitioners) of this association say hey can do and what can they treat?There are two rules here:

You can treat any stress related illness at all, and..

You can treat the stress component of any illness at all.

(Not hard to figure out why when you think about it.)

Relaxation and a positive mental attitude also help to boost the immune system. As to why it works better for some things than others such as IBS or wait for it, yes it's true and I can't resist saying it, breast enlargement the general rule of thumb appears to be that the areas best effected by hypnotherapy tend to have a large number of nerves nearby and/or a good blood supply.

(All the best to anyone who wants to spend 10 years studying 'psychoneuroimmunology' to figure out why!)

Anyway, with all that said, before anyone goes crazy about the breast enlargement thing, please take a look at this page:

http://www.wendi.com/html/breast_research.html

It might be one of those things that hypnotherapists don't like to talk about too often but, believe it or not, this is probably the one thing that medical scientists should be studying the most to figure out just how hypnotherapy works.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by tonyb
One area where it could be considered 'unsafe' is if some form of regression therapy is badly applied, which could potentially lead to False Memory Syndrome. Done properly, however, regression can be safe and highly effective.Hi Tony,

One thing I don't believe in is 'automatism' - which is usually what all the fuss is about. As for false memories, well I believe in the socio-cognitive model of hypnosis so false memories are, to me, the byproduct of therapist and patient belief and reinforcement. I don't see how hypnosis as a thing in and of itself can cause it. Age regression? That, again, is just as risky as free association, as far as I see it. I really believe this only occurs when the therapist and patient play some kind of concentual game to bring it about.Here in the UK the profession is self-regulated, so we do get our share of incompetents. Usually, these don't survive in practice very long.True.Even though it's self regulated, in order to practice professionally you need professional liabily insurance which itself means that you need to be a member of an established association and demonstrate that you've undertaken an accredited training course.Er... no, Tony, I genuinely wish I could agree with you here but that's not true. You and I might have done things that way, but insurance realy is not that hard to get independently and there are many therapists out there who have done nothing more than some correspondence course or other and yet who still practice with insurance as members of some of the associations you might have in mind.I think a lot of the image problem with hypnosis is the way it's portrayed in movies, and the fact that some people associate it with woo-woo activities.The truly double edged sword is stage hypnosis. Every time McKenna does his stuff on the telly I manage to get more interest in my work from some and more suspicion from others - because both groups believe in automatism! (Either way, I don't believe that anyone on stage is really convinced they're a chicken.)

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Darat
Generally? And how do you know [it's safe]?Relaxation tapes have been 'in the wild' for decades now without any ill effects... just don't drive while you're listening to one!And how is that qualification obtained, who ensures that the practitioner is competent?In the UK there is a weird mix at the moment. Some schools are accredited by the British Accrediation Council (but you have to wait 3 years before you can apply for that). Then there are all the various trade associations - some with better recognition by the currently government recognised health professions than others.

I estimate we're a hop and a skip away from one accreditation to rule them all and in the darkness bind them....

(Sorry, got a bit carried away there.)

Either way, things are pretty good so long as you belong to one of the biggies and most people are.

You asked about evidence for the effectiveness of regression. I'll give you the answer I always give: talk to a counsellor (if you want!) about a negative experience from your childhood or adolescence and see how you feel during, immediately after and later. My guess is you'll be happy to have got something off your chest but feel the process was a little stressfull. Now go to a hypno and repeat the experiment in a relaxed state seeing the whole thing on a cinema screen. Again, my guess is that you'll still feel better about having gotten something off your chest but not as stressed about it. Really, it's the talking to someone else that seems to matter. How you do it is up to you.You say "nothing magical" but what is/are the theoretical underpinning(s) of the therapy?Again there is a standard answer here. Psychologically, you should compare it to advertising. Can you see yourself as the cool guy who drinks pepsi? Can you see yourself as the 'independent' guy who owns a macintosh instead of a PC? More relevantly, can you see yourself as a non-smoker or as someone who no longer bites their nails? (It's all very simple isn't it? Of course, hypnos should know some decent ways of helping you persuade yourself to stop smoking, etc.,.) Physiologically, the 'theoretical underpinnings' surround what occurs in the body during stress and relaxation - with hypnos emphasising relaxation! As to the fancy stuff, it's all related to blood flow or the nervous system or the endocrine system or the immune system or all of the above... It's not, I admit, currently understood very well, but it definately doesn't break any rules of anatomy or physiology.

Relaxation is good for mind and body. That really is all there is to it. As for that evidence you keep asking for, take these two links and call me in the morning:

http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/searchresults?author1=&fulltext=hypnosis&pubdate_year=&volume=&firstpage=&src=hw&hits=10&hitsbrief=25&resourcetype=1&andorexactfulltext=and

http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/searchresults?author1=&fulltext=hypnotherapy&pubdate_year=&volume=&firstpage=&src=hw&hits=10&hitsbrief=25&resourcetype=1&andorexactfulltext=and

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Seemed to me they were coming from the same place and going to the same place, but the hypnotherapist had a head start because she made me do it rather than just telling me to do it.Yes, I can relate to that.But at the same time some of the other stuff the hypnotherapist told me she could do sounded like the purest of woo to me. (Like turning off a switch in people's heads that would stop them smoking.)I think it's because we (sometimes have to) do some damned odd sounding things with clients that we get this reputation for strangeness.... Either way, the switch thing your therapist mentioned to you isn't really that daft when you really think about it (I'll hazard a guess at what she was probably doing). Whenever you have a song going around in your head it sometimes helps to imagine a volume dial and visualise turing it down. (Not always but sometimes.) If someone can convince themselves that a craving for cigarettes is just like this then, again, the same principle just might work - again, not always, but sometimes.

So, while these silly tricks might sound completely daft - try to remember that the therapist is just doing something similar to stage mentalism.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[tonyb]

Hi Darat & HypnoPsi,

Darat - Your calls for evidence are more than reasonable and to be welcomed. HypnoPsi has already given addressed some of your points so I'll just add a couple of extras:

How do we know hypnosis is generally safe?
One indicator is how much liability insurance costs - and it's multiple times less than for a psychiatrist. There aren't many cases that go to court where hypnosis is accused of being the problem (more likely to be the practitioner not behaving properly). I admit that's not the most scientific of indicators, but it appears that malpractice suits against doctors is much more widespread than against hypnotherapists (and before you ask, I don't have figures to support that, it's more an impression based on what I read from journals etc.).

How do we know that a practitioner is competent?
Not always easy, given the self-regulation of the industry. Once established, most clients come via recommendation of friends/family of previous clients.

Regression therapy can be safe (when done properly)
Admittedly this is mainly anecdotal evidence here; i.e. I see people's lives change profoundly and they recommend someone else to me!

Incompetent therapists (usually) don't survive very long
Again, because most clients come via recommendation rather than marketing (once established). Of course, some very competent therapists also don't survive long if they lack the necessary business acumen to get established.


It's very unfortunate that most evidence that supports hypnotherapy tends to be anecdotal - I really wish there were more scientific research studies done to make the practice considered "mainstream" rather than "alternative".

Here's a link that might be of interest in some research that has been done:
www.altor.org/et-bulk.htm (http://www.altor.org/et-bulk.htm)


HypnoPsi - I generally agree with the points you made, although I never suggested that hypnosis of itself could cause FMS! (just badly applied therapy). And you may be right about there being some insurance companies that will take anybody that pays the premium, regardless of competence. Would be sad, though.


Posted by Rolfe
But at the same time some of the other stuff the hypnotherapist told me she could do sounded like the purest of woo to me. (Like turning off a switch in people's heads that would stop them smoking.)

Also agree with HypnoPsi here that there's nothing woo-woo about it. Just imagine that there really was a switch in your mind that could stop you smoking, and you switched it. If you believed it enough it would probably work (isn't everything we do based on our beliefs?).

[epepke]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
Yes, I can relate to that.I think it's because we (sometimes have to) do some damned odd sounding things with clients that we get this reputation for strangeness.... Either way, the switch thing your therapist mentioned to you isn't really that daft when you really think about it (I'll hazard a guess at what she was probably doing). Whenever you have a song going around in your head it sometimes helps to imagine a volume dial and visualise turing it down. (Not always but sometimes.) If someone can convince themselves that a craving for cigarettes is just like this then, again, the same principle just might work - again, not always, but sometimes.

This is one of the problems with the concept of "woo," I think. Almost all psychological language (for that matter, almost all communication period) is metaphorical. I'm only saying "almost" as a hedge, not because I can think of an exception. For example, talking about going to a nice place is obviously a metaphor.

So, what gets called "woo" and what is not "woo"? Maybe the familiar metaphors are non-woo and the unfamiliar metaphors are woo. But, of course, if someone goes for talking therapy, et.al., it probably means that they've run out of metaphors, because if the ones that were familiar to them worked, why bother?

The trouble starts when people start to believe in their therapeutic successes so much that they construct a pseudoscientific theory around it and then use the theory in such a way that it impairs their empirically-derived knowledge.

This is not limited to therapists, of course. Educators fall into this trap as well. Back when I was growing up there was this thing called the "new math" which took over like wildfire. It turned out to be no better than the "old math." What happened was that a group of highly skilled teachers decided to champion and evangelize it.

[Marian]

Originally posted by tonyb
Regression therapy can be safe (when done properly)
Admittedly this is mainly anecdotal evidence here; i.e. I see people's lives change profoundly and they recommend someone else to me!

Incompetent therapists (usually) don't survive very long
Again, because most clients come via recommendation rather than marketing (once established). Of course, some very competent therapists also don't survive long if they lack the necessary business acumen to get established.

Can you clarify what you mean by the statement "Regression therapy can be safe when done properly"? I know that you've stated that your evidence is mainly anecdotal, but there has been a tremendous amount of harm done with "regression therapy", primarily with false memory issues.

I can't think of any instance in which regression therapy would be a viable route. If you're dealing with any type of tramatic situation, then regression therapy can be extremely harmful. Maybe I'm just overlooking something, or am not aware of an area where it's beneficial. So I'm interested to know where it could be, with regression.

Two areas of extreme harm that took place in the United States from roughly the early 1980s through the mid 1990s (and occassionally cases still arise today, but are much more uncommon) were Satantic/Ritual abuse cases, and MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder).

There were more than a few Satantic/Ritual abuses cases that went to trial. There were numerous accounts all over the country of therapists seeing patients who recounted horrific Satanic and/or Ritual abuse. Accounts of rapes in public places, pregnancies where the baby was then sacrificed, children being tortured, abused, sometimes sacrificed. In some areas commissions were actually set up to deal with these 'problems', and law enforcement 'task forces' as well. Yet there was absolutely no evidence in any case (AFAIK). The only evidence was information given by people, generally solicited in therapy, under hypnosis with regression.

The second area is MPD. Today the widespread view is that this is a disorder created by therapists. In fact the current treatment when it is found to manifest is to remove the patient from contact with the therapist. Regression therapy was a staple in MPD cases. When the majority of these cases occurred, it was believed that the primary cause of the fragmentation of the personality was due to a main tramatic event, generally in early childhood. A trama so severe, that the personality could not survive it, and so 'fragmented' into portions that could handle specific tasks, or specific emotional areas.

Obviously with both situations there are people who believe that Satantic and Ritual abuse did occur, and the accounts given under regression therapy were truthful and accurate, even when other evidence showed otherwise. Same with MPD. There are psychatrists and psychologists I'm sure that will maintain it's a valid disorder. But that's just not the viewpoint today.

Given that ALL memory regression under hypnosis has the very real potential for altering memory inaccurately, I just can't think of any valid basis for this type of therapy. Maybe there's something I'm simply not thinking of.

Hypnosis is rarely used in law enforcement anymore for the same reasons, because it's known to taint memory, the memory becomes unreliable, and it's not recommended. I *think* (I'm not 100% sure, but think I read this recently as a side note somewhere) that in some areas evidence gained under hypnosis is no longer even admissible...but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Anyway, to the additional note that incompetant therapists don't survive long...I wish that were true. Incompetant doctors can even survive in their field. There have been medical doctors revoked in one state, who go to practice in another (in the United States). There have been therapists who've been sued for serious conduct breeches, who continue to maintain a successful practice when they're not revoked. And there were a number of lawsuits over the false memory issues, and many of those therapists had numerous patients that were victimized. :(

Unfortunately I think it is a field where someone incompetant may continue to stay in business. You don't have to look too far to find bizarre claims made in hypnotherapy (that it can cure incurable diseases, that it can help people regrow hair, gain penis length, etc. ad naseum) yet those people seem to do a lucrative business, even if all they're offering is snake oil.

I'm not bashing hypnotherapy, it does have valid uses, and there are areas still being investigated. I recently had a conversation with a friend about this topic (after the latest Bullsh*t episode) who sent me a good article regarding a study being done on hypnotherapy and pain management. So I'm not trying to say it's "bad" or anything like that. Merely that there is potential harm in some of its uses, specifically involving regression and memory.

And again if you're aware of beneficial uses in regression I'd be interested to learn of them. :)

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by epepke
This is one of the problems with the concept of "woo," I think. Almost all psychological language (for that matter, almost all communication period) is metaphorical. I'm only saying "almost" as a hedge, not because I can think of an exception. For example, talking about going to a nice place is obviously a metaphor.Yes - and no! When we do an induction we'll typically include PPR (progressive physical relaxation) and SPV (safe place visualisation). Why? Literally, the answer is because it makes the client happy and less stressed - and that means real chemical changes in the brain and physiology and a little or a lot more confidence to takle the presenting issue. As for the cognitive interventions - switches or whatever - they can be done outside of hypnosis, but a relaxed patient just tends to be more confident and happy.

So, the hypno runs an anchor asking your to see yourself on a cinema screen being stressed out and correspondingly to imagine a lever going up. Then they ask you to imagine yourself at a happy time and to correspondingly imagine the same imaginary lever going down. Now the crux of the issue is that this will probably work well the first time you do it but it has to be reinforced for the client to develop control of their own mind. We don't produce change in the mind or the body - we just fascilitate a psychophysiological state in which the client can fascilitate change themselves.So, what gets called "woo" and what is not "woo"? Maybe the familiar metaphors are non-woo and the unfamiliar metaphors are woo.That's definately part of it, yes, since hypnos won't hesitate to use some truly ridiculous seeming metaphors with patients should they be based on something the patient has perhaps said in session.

Another 'woo' factor is lack of knowledge on the part of the questioner. If you see an advert for hypnotherapy promoting it's use for burns, broken bones, severe bruising, better sex and stronger hair and nails your first instinct might be to ask that the hypno show you the scientific evidence for each one. (After all, what's the link in your mind between mending broken bones and dermatology?) Now, they might be a very clever and studious hypno who has memorised lots and lots of abstracts, articles and researcher names and has a brain like a database but let's imagine instead that they aren't! And guess what - they don't have to have a head like a database. All you really need to know as the client/patient is that hypnosis reduces stress, increases 'positivity' and promotes better and more regular sleep - meaning better production of HgH (human growth hormone). And, yes, if you haven't guessed it by now, HgH is related to all of the above.

Remember: the body is systemic. The way to think about hypnosis is to ask what effects relaxation and a PMA (positive mental attitude) have on our psychophysiology, and to then work backwards from the etiology of any given presenting issue and then, finally, to guage what palliative, remedial or curitive effects hypnotherapy will likely have in terms of promoting homeostasis against degeneration, damage or disease.The trouble starts when people start to believe in their therapeutic successes so much that they construct a pseudoscientific theory around it and then use the theory in such a way that it impairs their empirically-derived knowledge.But it's in our nature to look for patterns People will see faces in clouds or on the surface of Mars for the same reason. It's not due to fantasy proneness as much as it's due to the way we evolved. The brain stores information as schemas. Asking people not to think this way is, frankly, impossible in the long-run. It's a handicap we have to deal with - and we're all guilty of it.This is not limited to therapists, of course. Educators fall into this trap as well. Back when I was growing up there was this thing called the "new math" which took over like wildfire. It turned out to be no better than the "old math." What happened was that a group of highly skilled teachers decided to champion and evangelize it. Everyone is guilty of it - even skeptics. It's the way our minds work - we learn by rote, association and connection - and if no objective connection is apparent the mind will subjectively provide one itself.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Marian
Can you clarify what you mean by the statement "Regression therapy can be safe when done properly"? I know that you've stated that your evidence is mainly anecdotal, but there has been a tremendous amount of harm done with "regression therapy", primarily with false memory issues. I can't think of any instance in which regression therapy would be a viable route. If you're dealing with any type of tramatic situation, then regression therapy can be extremely harmful. Maybe I'm just overlooking something, or am not aware of an area where it's beneficial. So I'm interested to know where it could be, with regression.Hello Marian,

Getting things out is always better than keeping them bottled up - that's why therapy is 99% listening - unless you're a hypno for obvious reasons. The simple fact is that it's just less stressful to talk about traumatic experiences when you're in a relaxed state and viewing it all on a cinema screen. (Believe me - if you want to see stress sit in during a gestalt or dramatherapy session!) Abreaction is a valid therapeutic intervention but it's important not too push the client to provide it.

Remember all therapy, whether it's identified as counselling, psychotherapy or hypnotherapy, is a socio-cognitive affair. And while Los Angeles might be overflowing with patients with recovered memories of sexual abuse you have to respect that this just doesn't happen in the Scottish town where I abide. I'm not saying that I and other local therapists don't get patients who'll excalaim "I haven't thought about that for ages!" after hypnoanalysis and they they will recollect some details and information about certain things that have befallen them, but there are more sightings of the Swiss Navy than there are of people recovering memories of sexual abuse in my life.

The British False Memory Society, made up of exteemed and learned professionals, supports the socio-cognitive explanation of all of this. Therapist and patient must have some kind of latent agreement to find this stuff and to reinforce it somehow.

Another thing you should consider is what interventions have been used to uncover these memories and who has been doing the uncovering. You may or may not be surprised to learn that this has usually occurred with such things as free association and psychoanalytic type therapies more than hypnotherapy - though people like to scapegoat hypnosis. Furthermore, you'll also find that it most regularly occurs with social workers, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists than lay practitioners. I'll offer that's because lay practitioners are more timid about what they'll deal with and because patients will be more willing to open up to a 'real doctor' than a 'complementary therapist'. The scapegoating of 'unregulated therapists' isn't supported by the facts. Furthermore, out of the millions of therapy sessions that are held every day throughout the world it is only the smallest fraction that produce 'false memory syndrome'. People should learn to put this in context.The only evidence was information given by people, generally solicited in therapy, under hypnosis with regression.I'd ask for evidence here that hypnotherapy was the first choice of treatement (rather tahn hypnosis only being employed to find out more details of something alread hinted at and latently agreed to by therapist and patient) and that the therapists in question were 'lay practitioners'. I'm not saying that's impossible, but I really do think you'll find that lay practitioners are implicated considerably less in these instances than people might imagine.Given that ALL memory regression under hypnosis has the very real potential for altering memory inaccurately, I just can't think of any valid basis for this type of therapy. Maybe there's something I'm simply not thinking of. You'd have to see it done to realise just how mundane it is to me and other therapists and just how removed your experiences are to our work. And, by the way, hypnosis is no more likely to alter memory than anything - it is leading questions that do that.Unfortunately I think it is a field where someone incompetant may continue to stay in business. You don't have to look too far to find bizarre claims made in hypnotherapy (that it can cure incurable diseases, that it can help people regrow hair, gain penis length, etc. ad naseum) yet those people seem to do a lucrative business, even if all they're offering is snake oil.Hypnosis simply assists the body in it's own healing process by reducing stress, etc.,. As I said in another post, hair and nail strength, the mending of broken bones and the treatment of burns might not appear to you to be connected in any way but they are all related to HgH (human growth hormone). Hypnotherapy, even by helping you to get a decent nights sleep, be less stressed and more happy and to achieve a more regular sleep pattern will assist your body to do what it already does itself. As for incurable diseases, hypnotherapy boosts the immune system (again, by reducing stress and increasing 'positivity'. Don't be too surprised to find remission rates slightly higher in hypnosis groups than control groups - just don't expect it to happen in every instance either. (And, by the way, you'll also probably find that the best results here occur between the age groups of early teens to early twenties when the immune system is already quite strong and HgH production is at it's peak.

There is no snake oil involved. Relaxation and a positive mental attitude just helps your body to do what it already does.

(As for penis length... girth maybe, but length I'd doubt.)I'm not bashing hypnotherapy, it does have valid uses, and there are areas still being investigated. I recently had a conversation with a friend about this topic (after the latest Bullsh*t episode) who sent me a good article regarding a study being done on hypnotherapy and pain management. So I'm not trying to say it's "bad" or anything like that. Merely that there is potential harm in some of its uses, specifically involving regression and memory. And again if you're aware of beneficial uses in regression I'd be interested to learn of them. :) To place this in clinical terms, what you're actually asking is what benefits there are to abreaction (which basically means recalling an experience and having a good cry). This might provide you with more information:

http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/searchresults?author1=&fulltext=hypnosis+abreaction&pubdate_year=&volume=&firstpage=&src=hw&hits=10&hitsbrief=25&resourcetype=1&andorexactfulltext=and

Honestly, the stuff about recovered memories of sexual abuse is really so rare that were it not so dramatic it wouldn't get any attention at all - and it just doesn't occur in our normal day to day work. Let me put it to you this way: if you were to train as a hypno I'd be 99% certain that you would, just like the rest of us, wonder just how the hell something so simple is supposed to cause all of these problems.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[tonyb]

Hi Marian,

HypnoPsi has already addressed your query pretty well, but since it was my quote that asserted that regression therapy can be safe and effective, I thought I'd answer as well. (Hope HypnoPsi doesn't mind if I repeat or rephrase some of his points).


Age Regression: what it is, theory behind it; evidence that it works:

What it is: The recall of memories from the past, usually from childhood. Sometimes these memories are already remembered by the client and other times they are of forgotten events.

Theory behind it: That by releasing negative and distressing emotions associated with the event(s), it can no longer adversely affect your life in the same way.

Evidence that it works: Admittedly anectodal in the main. I'm not aware of any double-blind controlled studies that prove its effectiveness. The idea of catharsis via abreaction is something originally discovered by Freud. I can only tell you that from personal experience it seems to work very effectively for many people.


For a false memory to be implanted, two things need to happen:

1. Somebody (e.g. a therapist) suggests that an event must have taken place (when there is no good evidence to suppose that it did).

AND

2. The client finds reasons to believe that it must have (perhaps because of the authority or supposed knowledge of the therapist).


So the solution to safely perform age regression without risking FMS is not to suggest that an event must have happened, and instead just allow whatever memory the client relates to be expressed without interference.

Example:

Suppose during an age regression the client says:
"I'm 6 years old, and Daddy's coming into my bedroom..."

Some bad responses from the therapist might be:
"Aha, did he now..."
"Was that frightening...?"
"What did he do to you...?"

All of which could be taken to suggest that something untoward could have happened, and potentially start a slippery slope towards FMS.

The ideal repsonse from the therapist is:
"" (i.e. to say nothing at all and let the client continue)

If you do need to interject (say, because the client goes silent for a while), then we need to keep what we say non-suggestive, e.g.:
"And Daddy's coming into your bedroom..."
"Tell me more about that..."
"What happened then..."


The key is not to make any leading statements, just allow them to relate the events with as little interference as necessary for them to work through it. The technique isn't a panacea, nor does it work in all cases, but I see the positive results often enough for me to consider it to be a very good technique.


Question for HypnoPsi
Did I understand correctly that you don't go for free association? I ask because I find it just as effective (in slightly different situations) as direct regression, as it's based on the same principal of recalling past events. As a result, I often use fa (with hypnosis) for things like confidence and esteem issues. Sorry if I've misunderstood you here.

[The Mighty Thor]

This post seems to have got lost in the recent forum crash, so I'm reposting.


Originally posted by HypnoPsi
I certainly will! If you don't suddenly recall memories of sexual abuse right now what makes you think you'll do so after taking a deep breath and closing your eyes? Your question still assumes that the state theory of hypnosis is the correct one rather than the socio-cognitive theory. Now, clearly there is a relaxed state of focussed attention involved, but automatism or some kind of dissipation of consciousness? (You know when that's happened because the client starts snoring!)Memory is extremely unreliable even after a few minutes have passed. That can be proven very easily in psychology (or just ask a police officer about all the different stories about a car crash a group of people standing right next to each other have witnessed). Your question is loaded in that it assumes regression is something that only occurs during hypnosis (when you can recall your past right now) and that events recalled under hypnosis will be more or less reliable (memory is never perfect). Again, we only use a relaxed state because it's easier to face difficult things when you're relaxed and that's it.Well, hypnotherapy is already synonymous with relaxation therapy, but let's consider hypnoanalysis yet again. You're going to have to explain why you think it's more risky to talk about your childhood under hypnosis than it is in counselling or psychotherapy? That's counter-intuitive. I won't deny that there are socio-cognitive reasons why certain therapists and patients, believing in both the state theory and false memories, might be an explosive mix but it's not the being in a relaxed state that inherently causes false memories - and it would seem that the British False Memory Sociey agrees with me.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

Isn't it possible that a patient who truly believes he is hypnotised (in the layman sense -- like mesmerism) might be more likely to confabulate, than someone in a wide awake psychotherapy session? I have only my intuition to go on here, and may be wrong. But if people can remember 'past lives' under hypnotic regression -- to me that means confabulation. You know what you believe about hypnotherapy, but more important is what the patient believes about hypnosis and hypnotherapy.

The other problem I have is with 'professionalism'. An MD or psychiatrist or psychologist has a lot of training and is accredited. Are hypnotherapists trained to recognise potentially dangerous signs (like suicidal ideation) so they know when a case is out of their boundaries? Would they recognise an undiagnosed, but potentially dangerous condition?

The 'hypnotherapy can do no harm' position seems to me to be naive. I have given examples where hypnotic regression has caused immense harm. You might say it was badly applied, but how is one to judge good v. bad in an essentially unregulated, 'DIY' field?

[tonyb]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Isn't it possible that a patient who truly believes he is hypnotised (in the layman sense -- like mesmerism) might be more likely to confabulate, than someone in a wide awake psychotherapy session? I have only my intuition to go on here, and may be wrong. But if people can remember 'past lives' under hypnotic regression -- to me that means confabulation. You know what you believe about hypnotherapy, but more important is what the patient believes about hypnosis and hypnotherapy.
I think you're correct on all of these points - the client's belief system is very important and influential. Obviously part of the induction process is to explain what hypnosis really is and dispel the myths. As for the past lives thing, my personal view is that there is no good evidence to support 'actual' past lives, and so what is recalled will most likely be a construct of their imagination based on past knowledge/experiences. This may well be symbolic in some way of their present issues, so even though the event is 'fiction' it could still have some therapeutic benefit. If the client truly believes that their present day woes are caused by a past life event, and going through that event (even though it's fiction) gets them better, then it seems quite reasonable to allow this (and this can and has happened). You could say the whole thing about any form of psychotherapy (hypnotherapy included) is to work with people's belief systems, so they convert negative beliefs into positive ones.


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
The other problem I have is with 'professionalism'. An MD or psychiatrist or psychologist has a lot of training and is accredited. Are hypnotherapists trained to recognise potentially dangerous signs (like suicidal ideation) so they know when a case is out of their boundaries? Would they recognise an undiagnosed, but potentially dangerous condition?
I'd welcome an officially accredited qualification, since it would enhance the reputation of the industry. But I don't think you need to be an MD or psychologist for the same reasons counsellors don't need to be. Our remit is to only take on clients who can be described as 'normal everyday people'. I accept that some psychotics can appear completely normal and plausible, at least for a while. The course I did included training in recognising the symptoms.


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
The 'hypnotherapy can do no harm' position seems to me to be naive. I have given examples where hypnotic regression has caused immense harm. You might say it was badly applied, but how is one to judge good v. bad in an essentially unregulated, 'DIY' field?
I think the original premise was that hypnosis (as opposed to hypnotherapy) was harmless. This assumes that hypnosis is viewed with the same scope as meditation, i.e. as a technique that can allow people to become calm and relaxed. So any 'danger' of hypnosis would be pretty much the same as the 'danger' of meditation. Separate from that are the therapy techniques that are then applied, and here is where there are some potential dangers if it's not done properly, as already discussed in previous posts.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by tonyb
I think you're correct on all of these points - the client's belief system is very important and influential. Obviously part of the induction process is to explain what hypnosis really is and dispel the myths. As for the past lives thing, my personal view is that there is no good evidence to support 'actual' past lives, and so what is recalled will most likely be a construct of their imagination based on past knowledge/experiences. This may well be symbolic in some way of their present issues, so even though the event is 'fiction' it could still have some therapeutic benefit. If the client truly believes that their present day woes are caused by a past life event, and going through that event (even though it's fiction) gets them better, then it seems quite reasonable to allow this (and this can and has happened). You could say the whole thing about any form of psychotherapy (hypnotherapy included) is to work with people's belief systems, so they convert negative beliefs into positive ones.



I'd welcome an officially accredited qualification, since it would enhance the reputation of the industry. But I don't think you need to be an MD or psychologist for the same reasons counsellors don't need to be. Our remit is to only take on clients who can be described as 'normal everyday people'. I accept that some psychotics can appear completely normal and plausible, at least for a while. The course I did included training in recognising the symptoms.



I think the original premise was that hypnosis (as opposed to hypnotherapy) was harmless. This assumes that hypnosis is viewed with the same scope as meditation, i.e. as a technique that can allow people to become calm and relaxed. So any 'danger' of hypnosis would be pretty much the same as the 'danger' of meditation. Separate from that are the therapy techniques that are then applied, and here is where there are some potential dangers if it's not done properly, as already discussed in previous posts.

I hope more research will be done into the mechanisms behind, and proper uses of hypnosis. Because you and I know that it is essentially the same as meditation, we know that it should be harmless. However, as you say, the patient's beliefs as to what hypnosis can do is important. A second party is involved as 'the inducer' and 'interpreter'. People who are highly suggestible may well believe that the hypnotist has some 'power' over them. This can be a dangerous situation, both for the patient and the therapist. A corrupt therapist could use this illusion of power for nefarious ends. An unstable patient could confabulate in a way that might harm others, including the therapist -- by claiming 'abuse' of some kind. This has already happened in the McKenna stage hypnotism case. As you admit that regressed memories of past lives is confabulation, you must see that regression to any point in a patient's past must be subject to the same degree of confabulation.

If you say that the 'truth' can be distinguished from the 'fantasy', I cannot accept that this would be an easy task. The Orkney cases prove this to be the case.

If you say that hypnotic regression is only a 'tool' and it doesn't matter if the patient confabulates so long as the catharsis helps them, then I think you are on dodgy ground. As I have pointed out, false memories often have extreme repercussions.

If you say, hypnotic memory regression is useless and dangerous, then I agree with you.

Relaxation therapy and 'positive' CBT provided by a trained medical professional* who should adhere to a code of standards and ethics might be beneficial. *(I realise this is not always the case, but at least there is an existing structure that tries to correct bad practice).

So, until you have a regulatory body, a defined set of standards and ethics, and a suitable training regime, I think I am justified in lumping hypnotherapy with other forms of quackery. You compare hypnotherapists with 'counsellors'. I have my doubts about the supposed benefits of poorly trained counsellors, too. The human mind is much too vulnerable to be probed and manipulated by DIY quacks of any flavour. It should be left to the professionals.

How long is a typical session and what does it cost on average? You failed to answer this.

Separate from that are the therapy techniques that are then applied, and here is where there are some potential dangers if it's not done properly, as already discussed in previous posts.

I'm glad to see that you admit that therapy can be dangerous 'if not done properly'. However, you seem to be exempting hypnotherapy from these dangers.

Why?

Who is monotoring the potential 'dangers' of hypnotherapy 'if not done properly'?

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
This post seems to have got lost in the recent forum crash, so I'm reposting.As did my original reply - so I'm having to write a new one!Isn't it possible that a patient who truly believes he is hypnotised (in the layman sense -- like mesmerism) might be more likely to confabulate, than someone in a wide awake psychotherapy session?That means you need three things: 1) a patient and/or therapist who truly believes in automatism, 2) a patient and/or therapits who further has a need to confabulate and, 3) a patient and/or therapist who further has a need to confabulate details of recalled memories of sexual abuse.

What we need is a system of ensuring that therapists do not encourage this type of thinking while still maintaining the ability to explore the reasons a patient might have for confabulating stories of this nature. We also have to accept that we have no way of demonstrating that therapists who believe in repressed memories are actually wrong in their belief... I have my doubts about this form of selective amnesia but cannot entirely discount the possibility.The other problem I have is with 'professionalism'. An MD or psychiatrist or psychologist has a lot of training and is accredited. Are hypnotherapists trained to recognise potentially dangerous signs (like suicidal ideation) so they know when a case is out of their boundaries? Would they recognise an undiagnosed, but potentially dangerous condition?Anybody who calls themselves a hypnotherapist should be able to assess the patient for what are called contraindications. These include epilepsy and schizophrenia and other quite obvious things like old age, deafness and whether or not English is the patients first language. As for making sure that training is standardised to include things like this, I'd say that we, in the UK, are well on the way there with a good majority of therapists now being demonstrably well trained by the various schools that exist.

(As for asking a patient whether or not they're having suicidal thoughts this is obvious stuff. But it has to be balanced against a patients right to privacy. For example, if someone seeks treatment to stop smoking and does not appear depressed, etc., then the therapist probably won't begin questioning them about suicidal tendencies.)


But, let me make something clear on this point: disenfranchising thousands of people of the right to call themselves hypnotherapists is not regulation of this occupation it is deregulation. With bills to pay and a career at stake why will they simply stop treating patients when they only need to re-title themselves as a 'remedial meditation guide' or 'relaxation therapist'? (And you can definately forget about ever being able to call for legistation to ban people practicing as 'meditation guides'!)

What's a better situation for the UK, having 3 or 4 big hypnotherapy 'trade associations' or having 30 or 40 smaller trade associations? Right now, therapists are under some kind of monitoring, even if it's not ideal. They are also, crucially, covered by insurance when members of these trade associations.The 'hypnotherapy can do no harm' position seems to me to be naive. I have given examples where hypnotic regression has caused immense harm. You might say it was badly applied, but how is one to judge good v. bad in an essentially unregulated, 'DIY' field? Your question appears to presuppose the existence of automatism. I won't deny that there is a socio-cognitive explanation for why people have came to believe (or assert) that they've participated in 'satanic ritual sexual abuse' but deny that being in a relaxed state necessarily (inherently, as in psychophysiologically) produces this.

I would also like to ask you why you think you have the right to police hypnotherapists? People who treat patients should be assessed by people who treat patients and not by people who can work out on paper (or a computer screen) all of the possible worst case scenarios that might befall a therapist? The reason I say this is because you are forgetting how interference from the outside can actually cause more problems than it seeks to rectify.

In your view you feel perfectly justified in saying (at least I think it was you) that relaxation therapy is fine but regression should be avoided entirely but, on the ground, in practice (literally), things don't work that way:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393703274/103-6154267-6428662?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393704009/ref=pd_sim_books_1/103-6154267-6428662?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0789012464/ref=pd_sim_books_3/103-6154267-6428662?v=glance&s=books

Stressful and traumatic experiences produce instant changes in the body as they occur. (Think of this as very fast method of behavioural conditioning.) As the patient ruminates over their original experience their psychophysiology recreates (in, usually, a milder form) a similar state of physiological stress. Now, framing this withing the perspective of years and decades it is not hard to understand why this might have a lasting effect on physiology and gait.

Yet, all that you are thinking about - from the outside - is the slim possibility of false memory syndrome, something that is probably about 1000 times rarer than the side effects of drugs or iatrogenic compliacations in surgery...

What makes you feel, as an observer, that you have the right to proclaim what therapists should or should not do?

Correlation is not causation and there is no evidence that age regression itself causes the confabulation of false memories. Instead, there is every indication that this is entirely a socio-cognitive affair whereby the therapist is being too pushy about the patient "holding back" and the patient seeking to "please the therapist" and there is a general willingness to accept that recovered memories of sexual abuse have occurred.

Again, USA statistics and UK statistics for these tragic events should be considered separately. We should also look at whether or not individual therapists appear to be recovering memories of sexual abuse while the majority of others do not.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[Marrena]

Pardon me for jumping in, but I'm curious about something. I am incredibly, extremely hypnotizable (is that a word)? Is it known what causes that? I go under watching movies with hypnosis scenes, which has occasionally resulted in rather awkward

Dang! I bet it was that Kevin Bacon movie that caused my sudden belief in the paranormal!

Sorry, veering. It is so annoying, although it does have a good side--I can easily do self-hypnosis to block pain, etc.

[Ashles]

Hey Stir of Echoes was pretty good.

Better than the Sixth Sense anyway.

[Marrena]

It came out in 1999, right when my issues started. I had had "paranormal" experiences before then (I know, I know, explained by coincidence, etc.) but I didn't start having problems fighting this off until around then. Interesting. The hypnosis scene in the movie was one of the most effective I've seen, with a visual of the hypnosis instructions. I bet that's at the root of all of this. Well, it's certainly made my life more interesting and fun.

[Ashles]

So you've met all of us lovely people here because of Stir of Echoes?

The "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" does it again!:D

Kevin Bacon rules!

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
As did my original reply - so I'm having to write a new one!That means you need three things: 1) a patient and/or therapist who truly believes in automatism, 2) a patient and/or therapits who further has a need to confabulate and, 3) a patient and/or therapist who further has a need to confabulate details of recalled memories of sexual abuse.

What we need is a system of ensuring that therapists do not encourage this type of thinking while still maintaining the ability to explore the reasons a patient might have for confabulating stories of this nature. We also have to accept that we have no way of demonstrating that therapists who believe in repressed memories are actually wrong in their belief... I have my doubts about this form of selective amnesia but cannot entirely discount the possibility.Anybody who calls themselves a hypnotherapist should be able to assess the patient for what are called contraindications. These include epilepsy and schizophrenia and other quite obvious things like old age, deafness and whether or not English is the patients first language. As for making sure that training is standardised to include things like this, I'd say that we, in the UK, are well on the way there with a good majority of therapists now being demonstrably well trained by the various schools that exist.

(As for asking a patient whether or not they're having suicidal thoughts this is obvious stuff. But it has to be balanced against a patients right to privacy. For example, if someone seeks treatment to stop smoking and does not appear depressed, etc., then the therapist probably won't begin questioning them about suicidal tendencies.)


But, let me make something clear on this point: disenfranchising thousands of people of the right to call themselves hypnotherapists is not regulation of this occupation it is deregulation. With bills to pay and a career at stake why will they simply stop treating patients when they only need to re-title themselves as a 'remedial meditation guide' or 'relaxation therapist'? (And you can definately forget about ever being able to call for legistation to ban people practicing as 'meditation guides'!)

What's a better situation for the UK, having 3 or 4 big hypnotherapy 'trade associations' or having 30 or 40 smaller trade associations? Right now, therapists are under some kind of monitoring, even if it's not ideal. They are also, crucially, covered by insurance when members of these trade associations.Your question appears to presuppose the existence of automatism. I won't deny that there is a socio-cognitive explanation for why people have came to believe (or assert) that they've participated in 'satanic ritual sexual abuse' but deny that being in a relaxed state necessarily (inherently, as in psychophysiologically) produces this.

I would also like to ask you why you think you have the right to police hypnotherapists? People who treat patients should be assessed by people who treat patients and not by people who can work out on paper (or a computer screen) all of the possible worst case scenarios that might befall a therapist? The reason I say this is because you are forgetting how interference from the outside can actually cause more problems than it seeks to rectify.

In your view you feel perfectly justified in saying (at least I think it was you) that relaxation therapy is fine but regression should be avoided entirely but, on the ground, in practice (literally), things don't work that way:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393703274/103-6154267-6428662?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393704009/ref=pd_sim_books_1/103-6154267-6428662?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0789012464/ref=pd_sim_books_3/103-6154267-6428662?v=glance&s=books

Stressful and traumatic experiences produce instant changes in the body as they occur. (Think of this as very fast method of behavioural conditioning.) As the patient ruminates over their original experience their psychophysiology recreates (in, usually, a milder form) a similar state of physiological stress. Now, framing this withing the perspective of years and decades it is not hard to understand why this might have a lasting effect on physiology and gait.

Yet, all that you are thinking about - from the outside - is the slim possibility of false memory syndrome, something that is probably about 1000 times rarer than the side effects of drugs or iatrogenic compliacations in surgery...

What makes you feel, as an observer, that you have the right to proclaim what therapists should or should not do?

Correlation is not causation and there is no evidence that age regression itself causes the confabulation of false memories. Instead, there is every indication that this is entirely a socio-cognitive affair whereby the therapist is being too pushy about the patient "holding back" and the patient seeking to "please the therapist" and there is a general willingness to accept that recovered memories of sexual abuse have occurred.

Again, USA statistics and UK statistics for these tragic events should be considered separately. We should also look at whether or not individual therapists appear to be recovering memories of sexual abuse while the majority of others do not.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

I have no desire to police hypnotherapy. I am sceptical, as are others, of its efficacy. That is merely my opinion, shared by some others. We are questioning your statement that hypnotherapy can do no harm, remember.

But, for a start, as a mere observer, I think you are wrong with this:

Correlation is not causation and there is no evidence that age regression itself causes the confabulation of false memories.

Do people (other than the psychotic) who have not previously had hypnotic regression describe 'past lives' in conventional psychotherapy? I honestly don't know.

How do you distinguish false memories from real memories in someone in a state of hypnotic regression?

If you or one of your colleagues do get presented with a client's report of Satanic Ritual Abuse that you judge to be confabulated, (let's say it includes ghosts flying in and out of closed windows) do you report it to the authorities?

I hope one of the professionals here can point to the relevant papers. The two experiments I am aware of, as a layman, concern a group of people being hypnotised and being introduced to a false memory (seeing a mobile over their cot as a first memory). None produced this memory when in a waking state, but 50% did relate this memory under subsequent hypnotic regression.

The other case was with the implanted 'lost in the mall' scenario.

I suppose you could say 'hypnotherapists do not implant false memories.' But how do you know that some hypnotherapists don't implant false memories, even if unintentionally? If you found out that they did, would you censure them? Who would? Don't 'professionals' have 'professional bodies' who regulate their profession? You might 'be going in that direction', but you are not there yet.

So, why should society not be wary of a bunch of Tom, Dick, and Harry, DIY, possibly poorly-trained, pseudo-professionals who mess with peoples lives and minds? How is society to judge who are the 'good' hypnotherapists, and who are the 'bad'? It's a poor excuse to say these wannabee professionals will just call themselves something different to avoid accreditation. Not a very ethical argument, is it?

You failed to address many of the points I raised about ethics and standards, and about how much a session typically costs.

I am not attacking you personally. I assume that your motives are genuinely beneficent So please do not try to characterise me as some kind of lone anti-hypnotherapy crusader. Remember, the subject came up in another thread. I am criticising your statement that ''hypnotherapy/hypnosis can do no harm', when clearly it has done in the past. In fact, I think you and tonyb have admitted this. So, what's the argument? I am by no means saying 'all hypnotherapy is harmful'. In fact, I assume that for purely commercial reasons, most hypnotherapists, as you say, must be seen to be beneficial by their clients. But the same could be said of aromatherapy.

So, how do we (as consumers) sort the wheat from the chaff in your field? Your previous advice was a very hit and miss affair.

And how do you and your colleagues ensure that past mistakes that had devastating consequences are not repeated?

BTW, you say that memories of Satanic Abuse and the like are unlikely to come up in your country practice. What about UFO sightings and abductions? Do you ever get any of those, and, if so, what do you think about such reports? Why does Budd Hopkins get so many? Would you say he is a good hypnotherapist who does no harm?

http://ufocasebook.com/regressivehypnosis.html

Oh, and is hypnotherapy available on the NHS in the UK?

'A can of worms', indeed!

[The Mighty Thor]

HypnoPsi: People who treat patients should be assessed by people who treat patients . . .

People who 'treat patients' should have accredited qualifications, a professional body behind them, and should be constantly scrutinised from different angles. That would be the ideal.

[tonyb]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I hope more research will be done into the mechanisms behind, and proper uses of hypnosis. Because you and I know that it is essentially the same as meditation, we know that it should be harmless. However, as you say, the patient's beliefs as to what hypnosis can do is important. A second party is involved as 'the inducer' and 'interpreter'. People who are highly suggestible may well believe that the hypnotist has some 'power' over them. This can be a dangerous situation, both for the patient and the therapist. A corrupt therapist could use this illusion of power for nefarious ends. An unstable patient could confabulate in a way that might harm others, including the therapist -- by claiming 'abuse' of some kind. This has already happened in the McKenna stage hypnotism case. As you admit that regressed memories of past lives is confabulation, you must see that regression to any point in a patient's past must be subject to the same degree of confabulation.
I previously posted that part of the intake procedure is to explain what hypnosis really is so they realise the power is completely with them (not the hypnotist). So wouldn't someone who's "highly suggestible" by definition be even more liable to accept that than those less suggestible? For your point about confabulation, what we are looking for is catharsis, not 100% historical fact.


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
If you say that the 'truth' can be distinguished from the 'fantasy', I cannot accept that this would be an easy task. The Orkney cases prove this to be the case.
I've never stated that truth can be distinguished from fantasy.


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
If you say that hypnotic regression is only a 'tool' and it doesn't matter if the patient confabulates so long as the catharsis helps them, then I think you are on dodgy ground. As I have pointed out, false memories often have extreme repercussions.
The point of regression is to release the negative emotion from past events and at the same time learn from the experience. What's wrong with that?


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
If you say, hypnotic memory regression is useless and dangerous, then I agree with you.
My stance is that hypnotic regression (done properly) is a valid and useful technique that works well for many people.


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Relaxation therapy and 'positive' CBT provided by a trained medical professional* who should adhere to a code of standards and ethics might be beneficial. *(I realise this is not always the case, but at least there is an existing structure that tries to correct bad practice).
I (and probably most) practising hypnotherapists do belong to professional bodies and do have a code of ethics to work under.


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
So, until you have a regulatory body, a defined set of standards and ethics, and a suitable training regime, I think I am justified in lumping hypnotherapy with other forms of quackery. You compare hypnotherapists with 'counsellors'. I have my doubts about the supposed benefits of poorly trained counsellors, too. The human mind is much too vulnerable to be probed and manipulated by DIY quacks of any flavour. It should be left to the professionals.
You're entitled to view it as quackery if you wish, but I'm comfortable that I'm competent to do what I do and that it helps many people.


Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
How long is a typical session and what does it cost on average? You failed to answer this.
Actually, both myself and HypnoPsi did answe this, but I can't now find the posts so they must have been lost in the crash. Sessions are typically an hour each, and cost varies considerably depending on where you live, so typically could be anywhere from GBP 30 to GBP 80 in, say, London.

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I'm glad to see that you admit that therapy can be dangerous 'if not done properly'. However, you seem to be exempting hypnotherapy from these dangers.

Why?

Who is monotoring the potential 'dangers' of hypnotherapy 'if not done properly'?
I didn't exempt hypnotherapy. What I tried to do was distinguish between hypnosis (which I likened to meditation), and the therapy part of hypnotherapy. It was badly applied therapy that has potential dangers (just like badly applied anything).

[mgdwcb]

I think I posted this hypnosis story about before but I can't find the link.

The British medical magazine Lancet published an article 1957 about a Icthyosis patient (Fish-skin disease). A 16 year old male suffering from this extraordinary disease (a problem with the sebaceous sweat glands and is a congenital problem) was treated by an anesthesiologist named Mason. He thought it was a bad case of warts and as he'd just read a case study on wart removal through hypnosis he tried hypnotising the boy, giving him a hypnotic suggestions for his right arm to be cured. After 11 days the right arm was very noticeably better, whereas the left arm remained the same (zone-specific effect) and convincing evidence for the effects of the hypnotic suggestions rather than chance improvement of the condition as a whole.

Then Mason gives hypnotic suggestions to alleviate icthyosis on the entire body, resulting in an 80% improvement. How did this happen physiologically? Maybe due to stimulation of sebaceous glands?...

[tonyb]

Originally posted by mgdwcb
I think I posted this hypnosis story about before but I can't find the link.

The British medical magazine Lancet published an article 1957 about a Icthyosis patient (Fish-skin disease). A 16 year old male suffering from this extraordinary disease (a problem with the sebaceous sweat glands and is a congenital problem) was treated by an anesthesiologist named Mason. He thought it was a bad case of warts and as he'd just read a case study on wart removal through hypnosis he tried hypnotising the boy, giving him a hypnotic suggestions for his right arm to be cured. After 11 days the right arm was very noticeably better, whereas the left arm remained the same (zone-specific effect) and convincing evidence for the effects of the hypnotic suggestions rather than chance improvement of the condition as a whole.

Then Mason gives hypnotic suggestions to alleviate icthyosis on the entire body, resulting in an 80% improvement. How did this happen physiologically? Maybe due to stimulation of sebaceous glands?...
The mind-body connection is increasingly being recognized, if not yet fully understood. I don't have reference to hand about the details of the case you mention, but here's a link which shows the efficacy of hypnotherapy with the treatment of IBS which is obviously affecting physiology (a placebo controlled study!!!):
Treatment of IBS using hypnotherapy (http://www.ibshypnosis.com/IBSresearch.html)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by tonyb
I previously posted that part of the intake procedure is to explain what hypnosis really is so they realise the power is completely with them (not the hypnotist). So wouldn't someone who's "highly suggestible" by definition be even more liable to accept that than those less suggestible? For your point about confabulation, what we are looking for is catharsis, not 100% historical fact.



I've never stated that truth can be distinguished from fantasy.



The point of regression is to release the negative emotion from past events and at the same time learn from the experience. What's wrong with that?



My stance is that hypnotic regression (done properly) is a valid and useful technique that works well for many people.



I (and probably most) practising hypnotherapists do belong to professional bodies and do have a code of ethics to work under.



You're entitled to view it as quackery if you wish, but I'm comfortable that I'm competent to do what I do and that it helps many people.



Actually, both myself and HypnoPsi did answe this, but I can't now find the posts so they must have been lost in the crash. Sessions are typically an hour each, and cost varies considerably depending on where you live, so typically could be anywhere from GBP 30 to GBP 80 in, say, London.


I didn't exempt hypnotherapy. What I tried to do was distinguish between hypnosis (which I likened to meditation), and the therapy part of hypnotherapy. It was badly applied therapy that has potential dangers (just like badly applied anything).

Very well. Thank you for your insight. I think I have expressed my concerns, and if nothing else, it might help you answer such concerns from clients. I do think hypnotherapy has a useful purpose and possibly a bright future by being included in 'conventional' medicine and dentistry.

Certainly, the accreditation system in the USA looks dodgy. I haven't seen anything averse to hypnotherapy in the UK like this in the US:

Steve K.D. Eichel, Ph.D., who practices psychology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has obtained certificates for his cat from five organizations: "certification" from the National Guild of Hypnotists and the International Medical & Dental Hypnotherapy Association; "registration" from the American Board of Hypnotherapy; and "professional membership" in the American Association of Professional Hypnotherapists. In each case, the only requirement was completion of a brief online questionnaire and payment of a fee -- none checked any of the cat's alleged credentials. The cat also obtained "board certification" from the American Psychotherapy Association (APA), an affiliate of the American College of Forensic Examiners. Although the APA asked for a copy of the cat's curriculum vitae, it did not ask for any documentation of credentials or check whether anything listed in the CV was genuine. Nor did it require any examination before issuing a certificate attesting to the having met "rigid requirements" resulting in her "designation as a Diplomate." The accepteance letter that accompanied the certificate stated that diplomate status "is limited to a select group of professionals who, by virtue of their extensive training and expertise, have demonstrated their outstanding abilities in regard to their specialty." [5]

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/mentchoose.html

[tonyb]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Very well. Thank you for your insight. I think I have expressed my concerns, and if nothing else, it might help you answer such concerns from clients. I do think hypnotherapy has a useful purpose and possibly a bright future by being included in 'conventional' medicine and dentistry.

Certainly, the accreditation system in the USA looks dodgy. I haven't seen anything averse to hypnotherapy in the UK like this in the US:

I welcomed the discussion and I respect your concerns. There are some moves towards national accreditation in the UK via the NCFE (http://www.ncfe.org.uk/introFrameset.html) which is a start at least.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I have no desire to police hypnotherapy. I am sceptical, as are others, of its efficacy. That is merely my opinion, shared by some others.Quite frankly, if there is a single MD anywhere in the world who does not accept that regular relaxation, stress management and concentration exercises coupled with a positive mental attitude does not have clear palliative, remedial and curative effects they should hang up their white coats.

How many times do skeptics need to see evidence that hypnotherapy can boost the immune system, for example? Or that it can treat IBS? To deny it's efficacy is to deny the efficacy of going to sleep at night (which is when your body does a lot of it's maintenance work). Why do you think hospitals insist (most of the time) on bed-rest if not because when you're relaxed your body uses its energy to heal itself?

I feel like I'm arguing with one of those people who doesn't believe we've been to the moon...We are questioning your statement that hypnotherapy can do no harm, remember.And I am still asserting that exploring or discussing traumatic experiences without hypnosis is like driving through an obstacle course without your seatbelt on. This is self-evident, as soon as you think or talk about a traumatic experience your psychophysiological state changes. All you have to do is compare that to viewing the whole episode on a cinema screen in a relaxed state to 'feel' the difference.

Look, correlation is not causation in regards to age regression = false memory syndrome because it's an entirely socio-cognitive affair that seems to occur with certain therapists in particular while it never seems to happen to others... You keep mentioning the Orkney affair which, to my knowledge, didn't involve the use of hypnosis at all. Surely this demonstrates that all therapy is a socio-cognitive affair regardless of whether or not you have your eyes closed.

Patients might very well be encouraged to confabulate if they have a pushy therapist who insists they're holding things back - but then you also need a patient who both agrees within themselves to confabulate and, furthermore, to confabulate stories of satanic ritual sexual abuse...

Here's my problem with all of the above. I look at hypnosis and see a relaxed state of focussed attention. You seem to see something more – something beyond the socio-cognitive that appears to include ideas about hypnotic automatism and/or hypnotic control. I, coming from experience, know that it can be hard enough as it is to get people to look at biting their nails differently let alone to attempt to convince them that they've participated in satanic ritual sexual abuse! And consider just how detailed these stories always are...

It's very easy to conclude that patients, by the very fact that they may have sought help for being emotionally disturbed (even if this had not been apparent previously to family, friends and colleagues), have been the obvious victims of a severely misguided therapist. But, no matter how cruel it might appear to some, I do not see how we can entirely dismiss the possibility that the patients themselves might, on more than one occasion, have had a strong role in producing these fantasies. Individuals who have been hurt in the past can frequently lash out at others who might have had nothing to do with the original incident, particularly those who they believe should have protected them. Thus, we have to consider the possibility that false allegation of sexual abuse against a parent could be a way the patient is using to punish the parent for something entirely unrelated to sexual abuse...Do people (other than the psychotic) who have not previously had hypnotic regression describe 'past lives' in conventional psychotherapy? I honestly don't know.To my knowledge 'past lives' are, allegedly, recalled in dreams, meditation, hypnotic regression, guided imagery, free association and from 'flashes', 'feelings' or 'sensations' in everyday life. As for the recall of past-lives under hypnosis, I feel this strongly supports the socio-cognitive theory. Both parties, agree to explore past lives and probably have very firm beliefs that such things exist. Thus the therapist is happy to encourage the client to relate what they see in their mind's eye and the client is happy to please. Equate that with a situation of claims about satanic ritual sexual abuse and you'll realise how this is a socio-cognitive affair and inherently due to something specific about the nature of hypnoanalysis.How do you distinguish false memories from real memories in someone in a state of hypnotic regression?This question again assumes something specific about hypnosis. But the answer, of course, is that the same rules apply for hypnosis as they do for normal recollection. Without outside corroboration you cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.If you or one of your colleagues do get presented with a client's report of Satanic Ritual Abuse that you judge to be confabulated, (let's say it includes ghosts flying in and out of closed windows) do you report it to the authorities?What for? To look like an idiot? Someone who claimed things like this would probably be asked not to come back or told to see a psychiatrist.I hope one of the professionals here can point to the relevant papers. The two experiments I am aware of, as a layman, concern a group of people being hypnotised and being introduced to a false memory (seeing a mobile over their cot as a first memory). None produced this memory when in a waking state, but 50% did relate this memory under subsequent hypnotic regression. The other case was with the implanted 'lost in the mall' scenario.Without seeing these papers I can't comment upon these, admittedly, interesting anecdotes.I suppose you could say 'hypnotherapists do not implant false memories.' But how do you know that some hypnotherapists don't implant false memories, even if unintentionally?I very much doubt it's possible to ever converse with anyone without leading them somehow. But your comments still appear to include the idea that there is something specific about hypnosis that makes this more likely – but you still haven't provided any information about what that is.If you found out that they did, would you censure them? Who would? Don't 'professionals' have 'professional bodies' who regulate their profession? You might 'be going in that direction', but you are not
there yet.Actually, the bodies that currently exist do have codes of conduct, training
requirements, complaints procedures, supervision arrangements, etc., etc.,So, why should society not be wary of a bunch of Tom, Dick, and Harry, DIY, possibly poorly-trained, pseudo-professionals who mess with peoples lives and minds?You're still assuming that we have the power to 'mess with peoples lives and minds'. I ask again, how is this possible?

Thousands upon thousands of hypnotherapy sessions are conducted each day of every month of every year. Occasionally, one hears about recovered memories of 'satanic ritual abuse', usually an America, involving a therapist who has made a string of these allegations (or has a string of these allegations made against them) and usually not involving the use of hypnosis. I'd estimate you have about 100 times more chance of being hit by lightning than walking away from your hypno session believing that you've been part of satanic ritual sex abuse as a child... If I can't convince you of that now, what exactly makes you think I can convince you of it under hypnosis? You are, by necessity, including ideas about hypnotic automatism - that the hypno has control of you.

You have to prove conclusively that there is some kind of hypnotic control via which a therapist can implant false memories. Otherwise, common sense dictates that we accept the socio-cognitive explanation.

Why doesn't this control present itself when the exact same thing is described as guided meditation, I wonder? (Frankly, if you can show hypnotic automatism I think Randi should give you the million bucks he has on offer.)How is society to judge who are the 'good' hypnotherapists, and who are the 'bad'? It's a poor excuse to say these wannabee professionals will just call themselves something different to avoid accreditation. Not a very ethical argument, is it?On the contrary it is extremely ethical to advocate that people are kept under some type of monitoring and supervision and are insured. What benefits will it really bring to place people outside the scope of the radar.You failed to address many of the points I raised about ethics and standards, and about how much a session typically costs.Actually, I've written quite a lot on those subjects only to have them lost in the forum upheaval. Look into main UK umbrella hypontherapy bodies and download a copy of their code of ethics, training requirements, complainst procedure and accreditation process for yourself. Off hand, I can tell you that they're all pretty much identical in that it's 5 years to become a fully accredited hypnotherapist in the UK.I am not attacking you personally. I assume that your motives are genuinely beneficent. So please do not try to characterise me as some kind of lone anti-hypnotherapy crusader.I wouldn't say that - but you are looking at this from the outside and advocating solutions that just won't work and will actually cause problems. You're asking question that don't make much sense in terms of what we actually do and what actually goes on but probably make sense in terms of what you imagine we do and imagine goes on.

I have to ask you: is it your belief, contention or desire that hypnotherapy only ever be practiced by, say, doctors and psychologists as an adjunct to their work and that it never be a stand-alone profession no matter how many years a therapist trains for or what is covered in the curriculum? Remember, the subject came up in another thread. I am criticising your statement that ''hypnotherapy/hypnosis can do no harm', when clearly it has done in the past.Being in a relaxed state has absolutely never done anyone any harm anywhere. FMS, once again, is certain patients and therapists fooling each other and, most often, when they're not using hypnosis.In fact, I think you and tonyb have admitted this. So, what's the argument? I am by no means saying 'all hypnotherapy is harmful'.It's the context that's the problem. Were you to say: "It's a tiny minority of therapists who can be harmful, but this requires them coming together with another specific and small minority of patients, in situations where hypnoanalysis is occasionally, though most often not, used." then I'd be more sympathetic to your position. It's when you state "hypnotherapy can be harmful" that I object.So, how do we (as consumers) sort the wheat from the chaff in your field? Your previous advice was a very hit and miss affair.I don't recall giving you any previous advice on this issue - or being asked for it... but the best advice I can give you is to ask a potential therapist who they trained with and perhaps look up the school yourself. Lots of people advocate asking how long the therapist has been in practice and whether or not they've treated your particular presenting issue before, but to me this is a bit silly. How can someone change the fact that they're just starting out while the guy in the next town's been doing it for 20 years? Similarly, everyone has to treat every
presenting issue for the first time.And how do you and your colleagues ensure that past mistakes that had devastating consequences are not repeated?That's an easy one. The hypno-gossip grapevine is quite possibly quicker than the internet and even more resistant to nuclear attack! If anyone caused devastating consequences they'd certainly be out of their society and their names would be known so that they couldn't join another one. As for what had actually occurred, you'd likely find that it had already been ruled against (such as, not forming sexual relationships with your patients). Sadly, there is no way of knowing who is going to break these rules in any therapy.BTW, you say that memories of Satanic Abuse and the like are unlikely to come up in your country practice. What about UFO sightings and abductions? Do you ever get any of those, and, if so, what do you think about such reports?You hear rumours about this kind of thing, but in one case I recall the patient actually went to the therapist claiming they'd been abducted and wanted to use hyponosis to recall more information about it. (The therapist refused to treat them.) I imagine you'll find that the hypnos who do this kind of work are probably firm believers in abduction already – so again it's all socio-cognitive. (As to whether or not abduction really occurs – who knows?)Why does Budd Hopkins get so many? Would you say he is a good hypnotherapist who does no harm?Budd Hopkins gets these people because that's his market and what he's known for. Whether or not he actually does harm is hard to say since it appears that 99.9% of his clients already believe they've been abducted anyway. At the very least they must be open to the idea when they visit him.Oh, and is hypnotherapy available on the NHS in the UK?Increasingly, yes. But it can be extremely hard to get an appointment with a doctor, nurse or psychologist who's trained to do this. This has meant that there are an increasing number of 'lay practitioners', who have trained with schools known to have good curriculums and standards, being employed by the NHS. With funding, however, it's not a priority for the NHS to hire hypnotherapists. Understandably, they're more likely to provide patients with tapes/CD's relevant to their condition or ask them to seek out a therapist privately. It's certainly becoming more and more in demand and my belief is that while patients will still be expected to pay for part of their treatment the NHS will negotiate contributions somehow.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
People who 'treat patients' should have accredited qualifications,We do all have accredited qualificatoins. What you appear to be meaning is state accreditation - thus a nationally recognised clinical qualification. But this "idea" of yours that you go on to mention, ignores the fact that the world doesn't work that way. Instead everything begins as as lay practice (*everything* - medicine, nurses, dieticians, podiatrists, pharmasists, physiotherapists, psychologists) and then becomes recognised. Hypnotherapy, psychotherapy and counselling are no different.a professional body behind them,Again, to place this in UK terms, you appear to be meaning a state recognised profession as opposed to a 'common law' profession (technically an "occupation"). And, again, things become 'occupations' first and then 'professions'.and should be constantly scrutinised from different angles. That would be the ideal. But that can't just be 'open season'. Your higher than average knowledge about the caricatures, for lack of a better word, of hypnotherapy has you slightly confused...

You appear to be concerned about age regression in relation to false memory syndrome but have not properly compared the rate of the problem over and against the thousands upon thousands of times that age regression has not caused FMS. You're also ignoring the fact that it has occurred most frequently without the use of hypnosis and that it appears to involve specific therapists (and, to an extent, patients) and is utterly unheard of in the practice of the vast majority of therapists.

If you want to judge something and have your opinions respected you have to show fairness and be open in your agenda and reason for being involved.

Why, for example, do you not ask how it can be that tens of thousands of therapists never have these problems while two or three do repeatedly? Instead, you appear to assume the problem lies in hypnotherapy itself! Clearly - the evidence just doesn't support that.

Didn't you say in another post that age regression should be stopped altogether and only relaxation and CBT utilised? How do you justify this?

I supplied you with three links to books that highlight the physiological benefits of overcoming trauma. If you had your way you would interfere in the work of many thousands of utterly innocent therapists because of the malpractice of a few and deny thousands of other patients the right to the very treatment that might help them the most. Can you justify your statements and pronouncements?

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by mgdwcb
After 11 days the right arm was very noticeably better, whereas the left arm remained the same (zone-specific effect) and convincing evidence for the effects of the hypnotic suggestions rather than chance improvement of the condition as a whole. Then Mason gives hypnotic suggestions to alleviate icthyosis on the entire body, resulting in an 80% improvement. How did this happen physiologically? Maybe due to stimulation of sebaceous glands?... Hi,

There are two issues being addressed in your post. The first is the general ability of hypnotherapy to assist the body in effecting homeostasis and the second is, in your own words, the 'zone-specific effect'.

With homeostasis (a healthy state of equilibrium) it's important to understand that your body is always trying to maintain this state and or correct itself when things go wrong. Relaxation and a positive mental attitude assists in reducing stress for a start, and let's not forget that one of the reasons we sleep is so that our body can reenergise itself. In short, there's no great mystery here.

Now for the 'zone specific effect' - that's not very well understood at all. That it has something to do with conscious innervation/enervation seems very plausable. I would also offer that hormonal and hematological factors are clearly at work here as well.

Basically, I have precious few ideas as to why hypnotherapy can effect change in one arm but not the entire body in Icthyosis. Generally effecting homeostasis would be much more understandable but, frankly, whatever it is that's occuring it definately works.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[JMA]

The point of regression is to release the negative emotion from past events and at the same time learn from the experience. What's wrong with that?

Why do you need hypnosis to do that? Or why do you think that it would be more helpfull under hypnosis than without?

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by JMA
Why do you need hypnosis to do that? Or why do you think that it would be more helpfull under hypnosis than without? You asked Tony why you need hypnosis or why it's more helpful to use hypnosis to release negative emotion from the past.

I've commented upon this point numerous times already. The reasons for using hypnosis are entirely self-evident. Talk to someone about something traumatic that has happened to you and see how you feel and then compare that to viewing the whole scene in a relaxed state on a stage or cinema screen.

It is counter-intuative to suggest it is better to discuss traumatic events outside of hypnosis when your physiology is likely to be excited and your adrenalin rushing. Not using hypnosis to discuss traumatic events is like not using an anaesthetic during surgery.

Now, I'm not saying from this that catharsis in hypnosis can't be extremely emotional - it most definately can - but having a patient ventilate those same emotions without hypnosis would create an incredible scene (as often occurs in psychotherapy).

I would eagerly welcome clinical trials into the benefits of using hypnosis with catharsis with total confidence.

If I didn't believe that hypnotherapy was safer, quicker and more effective than all other forms of psychotherapy for a wider range of issues (let's remember that hypnotherapy is versatile enough to directly treat physiological presenting issues as well) I would train in and practice another modality of therapy.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
. . .
I supplied you with three links to books that highlight the physiological benefits of overcoming trauma. If you had your way you would interfere in the work of many thousands of utterly innocent therapists because of the malpractice of a few and deny thousands of other patients the right to the very treatment that might help them the most. Can you justify your statements and pronouncements?

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

Well, Stephen, maybe you need to work on your self-relaxation techniques:) tonyb's bedside manner is much more decorous.

I will probably buy one of the books you linked to, since I have personal experience of two WWII vets. They were both of the 'we don't talk abot the war' types, and both worked all their lives until retirement age. It was only then that they seemed to deteriorate with PTSD. One was a gentle man, the other a hard guy, but they both succumbed with increased dysfunction when their wives died. One was my dad, the other is my father-in-law.

Your last paragraph is wrong. I hope hypnotherapy as well as other therapies can help people without them having to get ECT, as my dad did. And it did help -- for a week after the shocks, he was back to his old self, but seemed to revert back to lethargy and depression after one or two weeks.

I've expressed my concerns to the best of my ability. I'm no expert, and certainly not a crusader. But I think, if you are honest with yourself, you will see why people might ask such questions. They want the best, most appropriate treatment for their loved ones. What's wrong with that?

I don't have 'an agenda', btw, but as a potential client, I think I have the right to expect courteous answers for my concerns. Whether they convince me or not, is up to me.

Now as I try to go to sleep, I will do my abdominal deap breathing and take myself off to my favourite relaxing spot. That usually works for me.
:)

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Well, Stephen, maybe you need to work on your self-relaxation techniques:) tonyb's bedside manner is much more decorous.I'm not quite sure how you can expect to be treated with kid gloves when you're making swathing statements about therapists and your pronouncements could have serious impact on patient care.... I welcome your comments that hypnotherapy clearly has a bright future, but if you're big enough to enter a serious debate with some serious comments I think you should be prepared to justify your stance...I will probably buy one of the books you linked to, since I have personal experience of two WWII vets. They were both of the 'we don't talk abot the war' types, and both worked all their lives until retirement age. It was only then that they seemed to deteriorate with PTSD. One was a gentle man, the other a hard guy, but they both succumbed with increased dysfunction when their wives died. One was my dad, the other is my father-in-law.You have my sympathies. Maybe I should give you a more comprehensive view of my position - I view hypnotherapy to be as harmless and valuable as physiotherapy and dietetics and have a firm belief that all the silliness that surrounds it will eventualy be viewed as one of the greatest medical/psychological superstitions of all time. If you think I'm being too hard on you, bear in mind that it's because I know first hand the effects that fears about hypnotherapists can cause. People with, say, serious heart conditions or cancer could benefit immensely from the treatments we provide for chronic pain and having their immune system boosted. Yet, all too often we find ourselves battling against unjustified fears and concerns - and we also have our careers to consider. When you make statements of the sort your making don't be too surprised to find yourself on the receiving end of the odd swipe or two.Your last paragraph is wrong. I hope hypnotherapy as well as other therapies can help people without them having to get ECT, as my dad did. And it did help -- for a week after the shocks, he was back to his old self, but seemed to revert back to lethargy and depression after one or two weeks.And this is the type of thing that we would like to be able to treat - and we definately could - without having to jump through hoops every time. You have to understand that the things that come up in hypnoanalysis are more likely to be: "Wow! I haven't about that for ages. I must have been about 5 or 6. We were at the beach and this dinghy I was started to drift out to sea. I was terrified when the waves started to hit me. I recall my father swiming out to get me and taking me back to may mother. I must have cried my eyes out for about an hour!"I've expressed my concerns to the best of my ability. I'm no expert, and certainly not a crusader. But I think, if you are honest with yourself, you will see why people might ask such questions. They want the best, most appropriate treatment for their loved ones. What's wrong with that? I don't have 'an agenda', btw, but as a potential client, I think I have the right to expect courteous answers for my concerns. Whether they convince me or not, is up to me.Don't play games. You are a skeptic on a forum devoted to discussing the reality or nonreality of the paranormal and began a thread to debate the safety of hypnotherapy. You are not some innocent here who is merely considering hypnotherapy personally or concerned for a loved one who may be doing so.

My point here is that you are making several claims about hypnotherapy that seem to be either wholly unwarranted entirely or blown out of all proportion. You are right in that therapists should have the deepest concern for the safety and well being of their patients - but whether you like it or not that also means pointing out, sometimes pointedly, when people might be saying things that could, needlessly, scare people out of seeking treatment.

You've been discussing false memory syndrome but what about the false beliefs that you are encouraging? If you're going to be a critic that's fine - but you have to bear in mind that your criticisms will have impact. Thus, no kid-gloves.Now as I try to go to sleep, I will do my abdominal deap breathing and take myself off to my favourite relaxing spot. That usually works for me.:) And don't forget your affirmations... ;-)

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[The Mighty Thor]

hypnopsi
Don't play games. You are a skeptic on a forum devoted to discussing the reality or nonreality of the paranormal and began a thread to debate the safety of hypnotherapy. You are not some innocent here who is merely considering hypnotherapy personally or concerned for a loved one who may be doing so.


That rant was totally AD HOMINEM and uncalled for.

LESSON TO READER:

PICK YOUR HYPNOTHERAPIST WITH CAUTION. SOME MAY BE UNCOUTH RAVING FANATICS WHO ARE IN IT ONLY FOR THE MONEY.

Let's get this straight, Stephen. Your chosen occupation is borderline on becoming accepted by the medical establishment. It has some proven benefits. Much more research would have to be done to establish exactly where they are applicable and worth paying for in the increasingly bewildering marketplace of alternative and complimentary therapies presented to sufferers.

People with, say, serious heart conditions or cancer could benefit immensely from the treatments we provide for chronic pain and having their immune system boosted.

Evidence? Or is 'could' the operative word?

People could benefit from drinking a glass of their own urine every day.

I do not know how worthy your accreditation might be in the UK. In the USA, accreditation for hypnotherapists appears to be a joke.

This thread was only started when YOU claimed that hypnosis is safe. (I took this to mean TOTALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY so) This is just not true. One of the first replies pointed this out and gave a positive link for the possible analgesic effect.

The Don If something is safe then it can't be effective and vice versa.

So if it has an effect it cannot be 100% safe.

Here is a study which seems to indicate that hypnotherapy had an analgesic effect http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15277295

Hypnotism might be safely applied to me and be completely safe -- and ineffectual. But you cannot say that no harm has been done. Hypnosis is the tool both in stage hypnotism and hypnotherapy. There has been harm done in both areas. I have actually witnessed physical injury to a member of the public occuring in a stage hypnotism act that was closed down at the venue that very night. I have referred you to cases where hypnotherapy has caused harm with FMS.

Do you agree that if some harm has occured, an activity is not SAFE?

If you do, then that's the end of the debate.

If you want to argue equivalency and parity of esteem with the established medical profession, that is an entirely different issue. Look at the title of the thread!

Indeed, your over-reactive defensiveness is making me more suspicious. :( So, I suggest you put the kid gloves back on, and start thinking about what you are saying.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
That rant was totally AD HOMINEM and uncalled for. LESSON TO READER: PICK YOUR HYPNOTHERAPIST WITH CAUTION. SOME MAY BE UNCOUTH RAVING FANATICS WHO ARE IN IT ONLY FOR THE MONEY.I think you might want to take some time out if you seriously perceive what I wrote as a "rant".... I will say with all sincerety that it wasn't - though I appreciate how easy it can be to project emotoin into plain text.Let's get this straight, Stephen. Your chosen occupation is borderline on becoming accepted by the medical establishment. It has some proven benefits. Much more research would have to be done to establish exactly where they are applicable and worth paying for in the increasingly bewildering marketplace of alternative and complimentary therapies presented to sufferers.Human physiology and biochemistry are already perfectly well understood to medical scientists and physiologists. You are looking at this from the level of effect and saying "Wow, that's just great! But how on earth can hypnotherapy do that?" while forgetting that 90% of the exact same things happen when you go to sleep at night.

Your positive comments about hypnotherapy really are genuinely appreciated but you are tripping yourself up by thinking of hypnosis as a "thing" in and of itself. (I won't deny there is some truth to that, but it comes much later on.) If you really want to get your head around this then you have to think in terms of how the body heals itself during rest and lay aside the idea of hypnosis for the time being. Honestly, you are unnecessarily over-complicating things.

I wrote:
"People with, say, serious heart conditions or cancer could benefit immensely from the treatments we provide for chronic pain and having their immune system boosted."

To which you replied:
"Evidence? Or is 'could' the operative word?"

I can understand how you feel these questions are important but there really is a much better way of understanding hypnotherapy which takes you beyond all of this - you just have to look at the underlying logic. You're basically asking me to teach you physiology if you want to know how the body heals and repairs itself during rest and sleep and the detrimental effects stress has on this system.People could benefit from drinking a glass of their own urine every day.Could they!? (If there is any truth to any of that then I'd much prefer to have somebody isolate the chemical(s) in urine that might have medicinal properties and synthesise them in pill form!)

It strikes me that you're thinking about hypnotherapy in the same way that a skeptic might think about homeopathy. There's no real underlying science (that I can fathom) in homeopathy. But that just isn't true of hypnotherapy - which is based upon, psychology, physiology and psychophysiology. There's nobody in the entire health care community who would doubt the palliative, remedial and curitive effects of relaxation. Neither would they doubt that stress is detrimental to the immune system or that much of the bodies repair work occurs during rest and sleep and that this can significantly benefit from reduced levels of stress.

Even the zone specific effects like breast enlargement and removing dermatological infections from one arm but not the other - and even treating warts, while they might seem like stunning tricks of magic, are almost certainly going to have a quite mundane and perfectly sound physiological explanation. HgH is almost certainly involved in all of the above. Now, all that has to be discovered is precisely how the nervous system and/or the hematological system is effected when you have a patient imagine warmth or tingling in a specifica area during hypnosis.I do not know how worthy your accreditation might be in the UK. In the USA, accreditation for hypnotherapists appears to be a joke.Well, a smaller country is more manageable than a larger country. Dodgy accreditors will be known to everyone quite quickly.

Basically, any new hypno school can apply to have it's diplomas accredited by the National Council For Education and then, after being in business for a minimum of 3 years and fulfilling certain criteria it can "go for gold" and apply to the British Accreditation Council. Their investigative process itself can last about 12 months (apparently) and a new school might not really be ready to apply to the BAC until it's about 10 years old. Overall, whenever the more established schools have applied to the BAC they've received quite respectable credit ratings at both Bachelors and Masters levels.

The reasons why many schools, new or old, might not choose to go down this route shouldn't be assumed to mean their course isn't as good. The above can be quite costly.This thread was only started when YOU claimed that hypnosis is safe. (I took this to mean TOTALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY so) This is just not true.How isn't it true? Hypnosis means rest. I'm not sure, but even you seem to have accepted that it isn't possible to "hypnotise" someone into believing highly detailed scenarios about satanic ritual sexual abuse, accepting instead that patient confabulation and therapist pressurisation is at work here in a socio-cognitive relationship. But, if it's the hypnosis itself that's unsafe then that means that relaxation itself is unsafe.One of the first replies pointed this out and gave a positive link for the possible analgesic effect.The first reply that mentioned the analgesic effects of hypnosis (and hundreds of surgical procedures have been performed with hypno-anaesthesia so it's not something to be skeptical about) pointed out that if something can effect change then it can't be entirely safe. Well..... okay, so it is very unhealthy for you not to get enough exercise. But that's bone idle lazyness - not rest! And while that that does remove the philosophical problem of hypnosis being a panacea that can only effect benefical change, does it really justify claims that hypnosis is unsafe?Hypnotism might be safely applied to me and be completely safe -- and ineffectual. But you cannot say that no harm has been done. Hypnosis is the tool both in stage hypnotism and hypnotherapy. There has been harm done in both areas.Correlation is not causation. The socio-cognitive model provides perfectly valid - and more believable (at least to me) - explanations as to how these problems have occurred.I have actually witnessed physical injury to a member of the public occuring in a stage hypnotism act that was closed down at the venue that very night. I have referred you to cases where hypnotherapy has caused harm with FMS.Occams razor. They all have socio-cognitive explanations. Anything else presupposed elements of hypnotic automatism - and that has never been shown to exist.Do you agree that if some harm has occured, an activity is not SAFE?I don't much like stage hypnosis but it's audience participation that's the risky factor. If you find that a few hips have been knocked out or muscles pulled during performances of the Rocky Horror Show would you say that dancing to the Time Warp is unsafe in the same way that you'd say stage hypnosis is unsafe?If you do, then that's the end of the debate.It's about the way that the issue is being framed that posing the problem here. You're saying the hypnosis itself is dangerous while I'm tryin to point out that it's what people do with each other in or out of hypnosis (and FMS usually doesn't involve hypnosis) that's the problem. Hypnosis is nothing more than a relaxed state of focussed attention.Indeed, your over-reactive defensiveness is making me more suspicious. :( So, I suggest you put the kid gloves back on, and start thinking about what you are saying. You're imbuing my posts with much more emotional force than is actually being intended in my writing. I'm certainly not stressed or annoyed as I type this. My comments about you not really being someone considering treatment might have been somewhat blunt but if any of it were really true wouldn't you have started the thread that way?

My point about all of that is simply that in your posts you've not only been trying to find a way to pin down what it might be about hypnosis that is dangerous but you've even claimed that it is unsafe in this post and at least one other. I'm just asking if you've considered the responsibility that being critical entails? I don't think it's an unfair question given that people could be put-off seeking treatment that might really benefit them. Everything points to socio-cognitive factors being the cause of all the risks and dangers you've mentioned and not the hypnosis itself.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

(P.S. Please, do not read me this time as "ranting". I'm not.)

[Ashles]

I actually think that's a really good reply Hypnopsi.

Polite, informative and intelligent.

Much as I like The Mighty Thor, I can't quite agree with the argument that if any activity has involved any harm ever then it is not completely sfae.
Although logically correct, I am trying to think of any activity that would be considered completely safe under this definition. I can't.

There may be unscrupulous and possibly even downright nasty practiotioners of hypnetherapy, but that doesn't make hypnotherapy bad itself. Merely the practitioner.

Also, you are clearly not imbuing hypnetherapy with any otherwordly qualities, merely explaining the benefit of relaxation, which is well documented in its beneficial properties, and hardly controversial.

Anything involving any form of psychological aspect has the potential to harm, but hypnotherapy on the whole seems relatively benign (compared with other widely practised psychological techniques, which also do great good, but have the potential for harm if badly administered).

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Ashles
I actually think that's a really good reply Hypnopsi. Polite, informative and intelligent.Thank you.There may be unscrupulous and possibly even downright nasty practiotioners of hypnotherapy, but that doesn't make hypnotherapy bad itself. Merely the practitioner.Every field of inquiry, treatment and therapeutics has its bad-eggs sadly. I think one of the problems the psychotherapies suffered from in the last two decades is the fact that there were actually some some good-eggs who have became overly involved in the whole FMS thing as well. Either way, it really does seem to revolve around something specific between certain therapists and patients only and no single style of intervention or treatment appears to be to blame - particularly not hypnotherapy.Also, you are clearly not imbuing hypnetherapy with any otherwordly qualities, merely explaining the benefit of relaxation, which is well documented in its beneficial properties, and hardly controversial.I believe it's all very simple and straightforward. The whole thing is about stress and equilibrium and your body is always trying to maintain equlibrium (homeostasis) to keep itself in order anyway. We just give it a little help by, psychologicaly, reducing distress and increasing eustress and, physilogicaly, helping the patient relax. As for the psychophysiological aspect where we have the patient imagine warmth, tingling or a "white light fluid" pouring into an effected area, let's not forget that this works best (though not exclusively) in areas that have a lot of nerve endings and decent blood flow. There definatly has to be a reason for that - and either it's causing a chemical signal that's telling your body to "fix these tissues" or, frankly, it might as well be poppy the invisible pixie waiving her magic wand to provide breast jobs, remove warts and cure icthyosis.Anything involving any form of psychological aspect has the potential to harm, but hypnotherapy on the whole seems relatively benign (compared with other widely practised psychological techniques, which also do great good, but have the potential for harm if badly administered).When you have patient confabulation endorsed by a therapist (almost always quite innocently and for the best of reasons) you can run into problems. And, it can be fairly suggested, though not proven, that the patient might come to believe their own confabulations given such endorsement by an authority. Due caution and care must always be taken.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by Ashles
I actually think that's a really good reply Hypnopsi. Polite, informative and intelligent.Thank you.There may be unscrupulous and possibly even downright nasty practiotioners of hypnotherapy, but that doesn't make hypnotherapy bad itself. Merely the practitioner.Every field of inquiry, treatment and therapeutics has its bad-eggs sadly. I think one of the problems the psychotherapies suffered from in the last two decades is the fact that there were actually some some good-eggs who entirely believed in recovered memories of sexual abuse as well. Either way, it really does seem to revolve around something specific between certain therapists and patients only and no single style of intervention or treatment appears to be to blame - particularly not hypnotherapy.Also, you are clearly not imbuing hypnetherapy with any otherwordly qualities, merely explaining the benefit of relaxation, which is well documented in its beneficial properties, and hardly controversial.I believe it's all very simple and straightforward. The whole thing is about stress and equilibrium and your body is always trying to maintain equlibrium (homeostasis) to keep itself in order anyway. We just give it a little help by, psychologicaly, reducing distress and increasing eustress and, [I]physilogi

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
Thank you.Every field of inquiry, treatment and therapeutics has its bad-eggs sadly. I think one of the problems the psychotherapies suffered from in the last two decades is the fact that there were actually some some good-eggs who have became overly involved in the whole FMS thing as well. Either way, it really does seem to revolve around something specific between certain therapists and patients only and no single style of intervention or treatment appears to be to blame - particularly not hypnotherapy.I believe it's all very simple and straightforward. The whole thing is about stress and equilibrium and your body is always trying to maintain equlibrium (homeostasis) to keep itself in order anyway. We just give it a little help by, psychologicaly, reducing distress and increasing eustress and, physilogicaly, helping the patient relax. As for the psychophysiological aspect where we have the patient imagine warmth, tingling or a "white light fluid" pouring into an effected area, let's not forget that this works best (though not exclusively) in areas that have a lot of nerve endings and decent blood flow. There definatly has to be a reason for that - and either it's causing a chemical signal that's telling your body to "fix these tissues" or, frankly, it might as well be poppy the invisible pixie waiving her magic wand to provide breast jobs, remove warts and cure icthyosis.When you have patient confabulation endorsed by a therapist (almost always quite innocently and for the best of reasons) you can run into problems. And, it can be fairly suggested, though not proven, that the patient might come to believe their own confabulations given such endorsement by an authority. Due caution and care must always be taken.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

Your last paragraph is exactly the caveat I was talking about. So, I think we are agreement -- and with Ashles. Hypnotherapy is mostly benign, but as with all therapies there are some dangers if they are practised badly, or abused by an unscrupulous practitioner. That's what I said in the first place!

BTW, the stage hypnosis I saw that went wrong happened in a children and adults 'holiday camp' club.

The hypnotist had a guy who was "very suggestible"?? The first instruction was for him to believe he was Robbie Williams. The hypnotist then asks what he would do with all that money. The guy replied: "I'd buy cars, women, and drugs." This did not go down well with most of the parents in the audience. And it should have alerted the hypnotist to the possibility that this guy might be OTT.

The next instruction was for the guy to be a bouncer/steward. The place is on fire. He must get everyone out.

Now, this apparently benign instruction had clearly not been thought through by the hypnotist.

This subject was a hulking brute of a guy and he jumped up shouting "Fire! Fire! Everybody's got to get out!" Then he ran to tables shouting to folk to get out. Then he ran in the two loos, and got a bit of a laugh there. But here, it all went wrong. He spotted an elderly lady sitting, and I suppose, 'helping the young and old' came to mind. But she had a walking stick propped beside her. He grabbed her stick then yanked her very forcefully out of her seat. She fell, and an ambulance had to be called. She had broken her hip.

Personally, I think the guy (the subject) was 'at it'. He had an excuse to put on show, and he did.

Good intentions sometimes lead to bad results.

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Your last paragraph is exactly the caveat I was talking about. So, I think we are agreement -- and with Ashles. Hypnotherapy is mostly benign, but as with all therapies there are some dangers if they are practised badly, or abused by an unscrupulous practitioner. That's what I said in the first place!

At the risk of appearing pedantic I feel justified in pointing out that you started this thread with the statement "HypnoPsi says that hypnosis and hypnotherapy can do no harm.". I still say that. Most instances of alleged FMS have not involved hypnosis and how can we prove it even exists anyway? Until it is proven to exist it is not wholly unreasonable to propose that this is all confabulation and/or, in some instances, the recollection of real (corroborated) events. Furthermore the fact that this almost always involves professionals rather than 'lay' practitioners is an argument for hypnotherapists to be at the same level as dieticians/nutritionists and physiotherapists rather than excluding hypnosis to medical doctors.BTW, the stage hypnosis I saw that went wrong happened in a children and adults 'holiday camp' club.

The hypnotist had a guy who was "very suggestible"?? The first instruction was for him to believe he was Robbie Williams. The hypnotist then asks what he would do with all that money. The guy replied: "I'd buy cars, women, and drugs." This did not go down well with most of the parents in the audience. And it should have alerted the hypnotist to the possibility that this guy might be OTT.

The next instruction was for the guy to be a bouncer/steward. The place is on fire. He must get everyone out.

Now, this apparently benign instruction had clearly not been thought through by the hypnotist.

This subject was a hulking brute of a guy and he jumped up shouting "Fire! Fire! Everybody's got to get out!" Then he ran to tables shouting to folk to get out. Then he ran in the two loos, and got a bit of a laugh there. But here, it all went wrong. He spotted an elderly lady sitting, and I suppose, 'helping the young and old' came to mind. But she had a walking stick propped beside her. He grabbed her stick then yanked her very forcefully out of her seat. She fell, and an ambulance had to be called. She had broken her hip.

Personally, I think the guy (the subject) was 'at it'. He had an excuse to put on show, and he did.

Good intentions sometimes lead to bad results. You seem like a reasonable fellow. I can't prove a negative, but until someone demonstrates hypnotic control of another (automatism) I'm inclined to believe the subject was 'at it' as well. Consequently, the examples you give are very likely to be hazards of audience participation.

I would agree that anyone who includes audience participation in their entertainment shows should adequately warn people that accidents can happen.

All the best,
Stephen

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by HypnoPsi
At the risk of appearing pedantic I feel justified in pointing out that you started this thread with the statement "HypnoPsi says that hypnosis and hypnotherapy can do no harm.". I still say that. Most instances of alleged FMS have not involved hypnosis and how can we prove it even exists anyway? Until it is proven to exist it is not wholly unreasonable to propose that this is all confabulation and/or, in some instances, the recollection of real (corroborated) events. Furthermore the fact that this almost always involves professionals rather than 'lay' practitioners is an argument for hypnotherapists to be at the same level as dieticians/nutritionists and physiotherapists rather than excluding hypnosis to medical doctors.You seem like a reasonable fellow. I can't prove a negative, but until someone demonstrates hypnotic control of another (automatism) I'm inclined to believe the subject was 'at it' as well. Consequently, the examples you give are very likely to be hazards of audience participation.

I would agree that anyone who includes audience participation in their entertainment shows should adequately warn people that accidents can happen.

All the best,
Stephen

OK, Stephen , I think I get your point on the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy.

However, I'm sure you agree that badly trained or unscrupulous practicioners could, indeed, do harm to their patients. I realise that this is the case with medical professionals, too. The difference is that someone could not take a short course or read a few books and then get a certificate accrediting them as a Doctor (M.D.)

I agree with you about automatism. But I would argue that 'most people' do think that hypnosis can achieve this result, and it is what they believe that is important.

BTW, have you any stats or studies on hypnosis helping people to quit smoking? I've often wondered if this was successful given the addictive nature of smoking.

If it does work (from your own experience) what then is the mechanism? Is the patient's 'self-will' being strengthened?

[HypnoPsi]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
OK, Stephen , I think I get your point on the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy. However, I'm sure you agree that badly trained or unscrupulous practicioners could, indeed, do harm to their patients.If the discussion has moved from saying that hypnosis/hypnotherapy can cause harm towards saying that an unscrupulous practitioner can misuse hypnosis/hypnotherapy to cause harm then I feel that I have an obligation to myself, my profession, my clients/patients and my colleagues to challenge this as well - if hypnosis/hypnotherapy is being singled out. People manipulate and emotionally harm each other constantly but there is nothing to my mind specifically about hypnosis that makes it in and of itself more or less risky in any specific way.I realise that this is the case with medical professionals, too. The difference is that someone could not take a short course or read a few books and then get a certificate accrediting them as a Doctor (M.D.)I'm forced to agree that the word "therapist" (psycho- or hypno-) gives the impression that someone should know what they're doing and have had some face-to-face tuition. (At the very least, even if hypnotherapy cannot directly cause "harm", people deserve value for money in terms of the "therapist" doing the right thing for the presenting issue(s), while accepting that health treatments cannot be "guaranteed".) And the title "Clinical Hypnotherapist" should definately mean that someone has advanced training and knowledge of the subject. I don't know about North America, but in the UK we seem to have made some good strides in this direction.I agree with you about automatism. But I would argue that 'most people' do think that hypnosis can achieve this result, and it is what they believe that is important.Well, of course. Seeing yourself as the as the kind of "individual" that drinks pepsi instead of coke, uses a Mac instead of a PC or is a non-smoker might all follow very, very similar underlying psychological logic - but faith and belief in the hypnotherapist is definately going to influence this.

The question I have to ask is if problems like alleged cases of FMS are better managed (and they are problems that have to be managed in the best way possible) by excluding hypntherapy to, for example, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists or by over-exposing it to the extent that everyone sees it as just the same as meditation and/or relaxation exercises? I feel there are compelling reasons for taking the latter appraoch. (All of which have been outlined by myself in the course of this this discussion.)BTW, have you any stats or studies on hypnosis helping people to quit smoking? I've often wondered if this was successful given the addictive nature of smoking.The most cited report highlighting the success rate of hypnotherapy in smoking cessation comes from New Scientist. You can access it here:http://www.stop-smoking-in-1-hour.com/NewScientistSmokingarticle.txt

I also found the following when searching New Scientist. Thought you might find it interesting:http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999577If it does work (from your own experience) what then is the mechanism? Is the patient's 'self-will' being strengthened? The psychological explanation I provided above is a big part of the answer and probably the best way to explain things in (laymans) terms of strengthening "self-will". But we also have to bear in mind that nicotine provides addicts with an 'instant fix' stress reducer within 5-10 seconds of lighting-up. Hypnotherapy or self-hypnosis, as an alternate, more potent and considerably healthier method of stress reduction almost certainly has a significant role alongside the psychological intervention in making hypnotherapy so successfull in helping people to stop smoking.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen