Debunked: Bruce Lipton and The Biology of Belief

[Dan Wilson]

What is very clear from everyone's comments on this blog, is that to some extent mind does influence matter & our health. The question therefore is: How much? and is there somehow an undiscovered or undeveloped potential here? Awareness exercises will show you that you & everyone else live in a very small fraction of what goes on in your head. So if we could quiet all the monkey-mind, the rather insane thoughts & disorganized energies which lie below our convincingly hypnotic, though inaccurate sense of self; if we could bring all that energy of our consciousness fully into the moment, isn't it possible, or doesn't it even seem likely, that this new Mind, so foreign to us in the West, could have a much greater effect on our bodies & perhaps even our surroundings? The place to explore these issues is in our own minds, not out in the external world. Consciousness is like a light, a flashlight in the dark. The more of it you bring into the present moment, the more you can see. But like the Buddha said: don't take my word for it, find out for yourself, if you care to.

Roland is right, there is no "untapped" part of the brain/mind that would make us so much more powerful if we could somehow use it. The unconscious mind is there to handle both basic tasks and second nature tasks. Two examples would be breathing and athletics. You don't need to think about breathing, you just do it so your mind can focus on other things. In professional sports, an individual typically has to focus on what they are doing as they learn it. As they become more skilled, however, they don't have to think about what they do. Their general motions are controlled by their unconscious and trying to think about it in this situation usually leads to decreased performance. This allows us humans to learn and solve problems physically and mentally. This is why the unconscious exists, it is not some hidden potential for us to unlock. It is explained in detail in David Eagleman's book, Incognito.
Now, introspection, meditation, metacognition, etc. are practices that certainly don't hurt and people can benefit from them, they are just often hyped up to be more than what they are. Your mental states also can influence your health but the mechanisms for that are known and they do not involve a force of mind over matter.

 

[Pete Tar]

What about biofeedback techniques, what category do they fall into?
If it could be said that thoughts are made up of neurotransmitters, then thinking the kind of thoughts that make a certain neurotransmitter prevalent, will affect the body environment.
It's said that social position, or lack of, can influence the amount of stress chemicals or happy chemicals in the body, but that's an external circumstance not an internal influence - unless you can trick yourself into feelings of social or communal belonging.
I'd say F White's basic premise has some ground, if you subtract any mystical connotations.

 

[Jazzy]

This is one of those new modern myths that allow people to believe that they are greater than they actually are. The concept that we only use a small part of our brains and have a vast untapped potential, allows the belief that if we could just utilize that other 90 or 97%, we would have super powers, or telepathy, telekinesis, etc. This makes us feel special in the same way that believing that the universe was created just for us, does.

The truth is that we all have sufficient to maximize our quite ordinary abilities were we each, individually, properly helped to discover them. IMO to be a fit, rational, educated, self-developed, human being gives one an infinite scope. If not in reality, right now, for oneself, then in dreams instead. And one's descendants will have another scope - also limited to their present reality. The trick is to see reality for what it is, and not incorporate dreams into it.

I believe we will go to the stars, or die trying. They are there.

 

[Jazzy]

I'd say F White's basic premise has some ground, if you subtract any mystical connotations.

I agree. I believe social stresses are a biofeedback that alter both build and behavior. But I have no real evidence for that belief.

Genes that control genes that control genes. Big fleas have lesser fleas. Those origins might be hard to find for whoever is searching that field.

 

[Loving Kind]

That's good, it's great to perceive the world as a loving environment. It's very important for your overall health. But when a time comes where you or someone you know actually gets very ill, please don't go to people like Lipton.

If someone gets ill or very ill, we will first understand the emotional causes for that (like a Louise Hay approach), and we will use Biodecoding also, with some Psycogenealogy and a good Naturopathic doctor with some sort of Holistic Diet and the best 'regular or academic' doctor that would give us some medicine and tests, and also keeping in mind Lipton teachings, which are related to all of this to start with. Love again, Love!Love!Love!

 

[Dan Wilson]

What about biofeedback techniques, what category do they fall into?
If it could be said that thoughts are made up of neurotransmitters, then thinking the kind of thoughts that make a certain neurotransmitter prevalent, will affect the body environment.

I would describe biofeedback techniques as training exercises not much different than fitness training. You train your body to respond a certain way and become more skilled at it through practice. It takes monks years to master it without the interface systems used in modern techniques.
That is right and that is the aim of anti-depressant medications. The reason anti-depressants don't always work is because they aren't selective for specific regions of the brain. I would recommend anti-depressants only if nothing else seems to be working, but that's another topic. The point is that the environment is important for mental health. Conditioning is one example of this, and can be performed on superficial things later in life.
Early in development is the most interesting time, though. It is known that abuse or neglect early in life can lead to measurable epigenetic changes that can result in things like depression, anxiety, mental disorders, and suicide. These epigenetic changes are methylation of cytosines in the hippocampus, which, unfortunately for Lipton's ideas, is not known to be reversible by normal biological mechanisms as it is a very strong bond. Biopharmacologists are currently studying epigenetic changes in attempts to develop treatments.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/brain/
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002085

 

[Dan Wilson]

I'm afraid that despite what Louise Hay (a motivational self-help author) may say, diseases like cancer don't have an emotional and psychological origin. Psychogenealogy essentially relies on epigenetic inheritance of bad experiences. There are hints that epigenetic inheritance happens in humans and little doubt that it actually does, but there is no evidence that negative experiences like rape and abuse are passed down through through the generations.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/

If someone gets cancer, it's best to treat it right away and not waste time and money with things like psychogenealogy. Coming to terms with things in your past, or your ancestors' past if it's bothering you I guess, is certainly a good thing but not a treatment for cancer.

 

[Cairenn]

My best friend is an excellent herbalist, but she doesn't depend on them for serious conditions. She uses them as a helper, or when prescribed drugs aren't working well, or having bad side effects (statins give her severe muscle aches) or when they are not affordable

 

[F White]

Youguys can have it your way. I'm just suggesting that there is another doorway directly into Reality. One that we own. I have nothing to debate. If you look where I've pointed, you may find what I've suggested. To those like me, it is clear that the game here on Earth as humans, is to realize that our existence is given for us to grow beyond the left-brained interaction with reality into a more effective, clever, & knowledgeable understanding of life. Only a fool would assume & believe that a higher entity would allow us to prove or disprove it's existence through materialistic empirical data. How foolish this is!! How foolish this is when the meaning of the game is to grow beyond that source of reliance for Truth! If you must have empirical proof, then continue to look for it--I grew tired of that game a long time ago. Our Western left-brained oriented existence is a trap.

 

[F White]

Psychedelics and meditation, especially Theravadan Buddhist meditation, can help.

 

[MikeC]

Why would I need "another" doorway into reality?

Waht is actually wrong with the one I have?

I already "own" it, I do not believe my existece is "given" to me nor is it part of any "game" so all that is completely irrelevant.

And if you do not actually have any empirical evidence to support your view what is eth point of having it??

 

[Cairenn]

Meditation is helpful for a lot of things. Psychedelics are a trap, they make folks think that they have a deeper understanding and yet they don't

 

[Pete Tar]

Youguys can have it your way. I'm just suggesting that there is another doorway directly into Reality. One that we own. I have nothing to debate. If you look where I've pointed, you may find what I've suggested. To those like me, it is clear that the game here on Earth as humans, is to realize that our existence is given for us to grow beyond the left-brained interaction with reality into a more effective, clever, & knowledgeable understanding of life. Only a fool would assume & believe that a higher entity would allow us to prove or disprove it's existence through materialistic empirical data. How foolish this is!! How foolish this is when the meaning of the game is to grow beyond that source of reliance for Truth! If you must have empirical proof, then continue to look for it--I grew tired of that game a long time ago. Our Western left-brained oriented existence is a trap.

But the flavour of buddha's original teachings are hugely empirically based, ie, 'this technique has replicable results'.
There is no 'other' doorway into reality other than what we already naturally have.
To retreat into empirically lacking unexamined fantasies is not what the buddha had in mind, but you seem to be advocating the abandonment of truth - of which a major quality is empirical evidence - in favour of mythic experience.
No doubt our brains are full of a rich tapestry of myth and shadowy archetypes and can be tapped into, but why is that considered some ultimate truth?
The false dichotomy of left-brain bad, right-brain good is just shallow pop culture mis-appropriation of actual real empirically based science.

 

[Cairenn]

I make jewelry and I often team up with 2 friends, who also make jewelry to do shows and festivals. All of us have multiple art skills. I have made and sold art in at least half a dozen mediums. All 3 of us also love history. However, NONE of us have 'right brain' degrees, mine is geology and physics, Sue's is Math and computer programming and Beth's degree was civil engineering. I can name a lot of folks that are the same way, very much mixed.

 

[Jazzy]

Only a fool would assume & believe that a higher entity

Exists.

Without.

Evidence.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Only a fool would assume & believe that a higher entity would allow us to prove or disprove it's existence through materialistic empirical data. How foolish this is!!

No scientist in the right mind tries to prove a higher entity. It's not something you can prove. That's the division between science and faith. A lot of pesudoscience and bunk comes about when people try to merge the two. There is what we can discover about the natural world through experimentation (science) and the traditions/beliefs we pick up to help us cope with fears and hard times (faith).
You know, I've tried psychedelics, meditation, being a vegetarian, the whole 9 yards. I've done shrooms and DMT with a similar mindset to the one you seem to have now. I did all of these things in the pursuit of some ultimate truth and by the end of it, I was so arrogant. I thought I could tell people that they were wrong and that western civilization was a mess. What the hell did I know? Who was I to judge a whole region of the world? How was I going to gain knowledge by doing drugs? Knowledge and truth comes from hard work and curiosity.

We have gotten a little off topic though, so if you would like to relate your points back to Lipton's ideas, that would be great.

 

[Unregistered]

... and the establishment crushed the works of Copernicus, Gallileo Gallilei for daring to suggest that the earth may not be the centre of the universe.

More recently, the international medical/science community derided Australian "Bush Doctors" Barry Marshall and Robin Warren and branded them heretics for daring to contradict accepted scientific and medical "FACTS" to suggest that stomach ulcers were caused by the helicobacter pylori bacterium.

Our wise medical community insisisted that stomach ulcers were cased by stress and spicy food.
Why ? Because that is what they were taught at university, surely it must be true?
And surely therefore Drs Marshall and Warren must be wrong.

Really? No - our learned medical community was 100% wrong.
And 100% unwilling/unable to listen or to accept that what they were taught at university was wrong.
And because of this failing, they 100% mistreated their patients.

To *MAKE* them listen, Barry Marshall drank a huge dose of helicobacter pylori under lab conditions.
He very quickly developed a stomach ulcer.
He cured himself with antibiotics.

In 2005 Doctors Marshall and Warren were awarded the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine...

We could all do with a little less arrogance, a little more humility... and an open mind, if we want to learn.
NONE of us knows everything.
NONE of us is always right.

 

[Mick West]

To *MAKE* them listen, Barry Marshall drank a huge dose of helicobacter pylori under lab conditions.
He very quickly developed a stomach ulcer.

Not exactly. He expected to get an ulcer years later, instead he simply got sick within a few days, no ulcer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall#Life_and_research

After failed attempts to infect piglets in 1984, Marshall, after having a baseline endoscopy done, drank a Petri dish containing cultured H. pylori, expecting to develop, perhaps years later, an ulcer. He was surprised when, only three days later, he developed vague nausea and halitosis, (due to the achlorhydria, there was no acid to kill bacteria in the stomach, and their waste products manifested as bad breath), noticed only by his mother. On days 5–8, he developed achlorydric (no acid) vomiting. On day eight, he had a repeat endoscopy and biopsy, which showed massive inflammation (gastritis), and H. pylori was cultured. On the fourteenth day after ingestion, a third endoscopy was done, and Marshall began to take antibiotics. [...] Marshall's illness and recovery, based on a culture of organisms extracted from a patient, fulfilled Koch's postulates for H. pylori and gastritis, but not for peptic ulcer.

And just because some iconoclasts are right, it does not mean that ALL iconoclasts are right. Marshall got the Nobel prize because he took action and provided evidence, not because he made bold unsubstantiated claims.

His account is here at around 26:20 onwards.
http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=614

 

[Unregistered]

I believe we are special, we are the only creations that can communicate with speech, I also know that all of creation can communicate with kind. If we could only learn to communicate with all how wise we would be.
I have had the opportunity to experience both ways, of healing, and I far prefer the attitude and beliefs of Bruce Lipton as the large medical field and pharma companies. Just my opinion, I haven't read his book but have read others and have had experience in both areas. Drs & pharmas are good for a few things but by far the natural healing and our own beliefs and lifestyles far outweigh them. You may have problems or even death if you mistaken use one herb for another but every drug out there on the market is loaded with side effects that most times far outweigh the benefits. One example is blood pressure meds, which I was recommended to take but refused and brought my pressure and chlesterol levels down with herb tea. The problem is, we do not have enough info on the natural and what we have is slowly disappearing being replaced with the chemical and Drs who who do not believe or incourage their use. Our body and mind is compared to nothing in its ability to perform miracles on a daily basis, some explained some still a mystery. I have no explanations only the experience of supernatural (loss of better word) happenigs of what Lipton speaks of . I have seen things happen by mere thoughts and intentions that have absolutely no explanation. I am a believer of all things are possible, not blind faith as some would think or church religion portrays, but I have experienced the words of the bible come to life before my eyes, some instantly others over time. We are trully amazing and should stop putting limits on ourselves and others by our limited beliefs and some proofs because we may prove tomorrow what we could not prove today.

 

[Cairenn]

Natural is ALSO chemical.

What herbs are you using for cholesterol ? Are they safe? All herbs are not. My best friend is an excellent herbalist.

Have you made any other changes in addition to your herb tea?

 

[Dan Wilson]

Thanks for the reply, but anecdotes can't go very far in the topics we are discussing here.

One example is blood pressure meds, which I was recommended to take but refused and brought my pressure and chlesterol levels down with herb tea.

Medication for blood pressure and cholesterol can pretty helpful for those at high risk for heart disease but those problems can also be helped with lifestyle changes. It's good that herbal tea worked for you but the medication probably would have given similar results.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Really? No - our learned medical community was 100% wrong.
And 100% unwilling/unable to listen or to accept that what they were taught at university was wrong.

Well, as Mick showed us, your account of the story was inaccurate. It's also important to note that science doesn't work that way. It's not enough to just hear a claim from a university/person, that source needs to be able to demonstrate how/why that claim is true. Most scientists do share this attitude, evidence takes precedence over authority figures. Show good reason for how you know what you think you know, that's all science asks.

 

[MikeC]

... and the establishment crushed the works of Copernicus, Gallileo Gallilei for daring to suggest that the earth may not be the centre of the universe.

Actualy Copernuicus's work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was given by him to his friend and Catholic priest Tiedemann Giese, who caused it to be published.

It was 6 decades later that his work was first written about as heretical - in 1609, and 1616 befoer the congregation of the index suspended it - by which time it was far too late to consider trying to stop if from spreading!

Gallileo was convicted of suspicion of Heresy for supporting the Copernican view in 1633, but in 1758 the Catholic Church's Index of Prohibited Books stopped including works that defended heliocentrism, although it still included copernicus's original version (an amended version that did not include heliocentrism had never been prohibited), and in 1835 copernicus's work was removed from teh list - ie it was "unbanned".

All in all of course there was only 1 piece of knowledge that the church opposed - that the Sun as the centre of the solar system (actually copernicus and Galileo thought it the centre of the universe!!) - to say the church crushed their "works" is not true at all.

 

[Paraclees]

It's not a silly question. Yes, I have watched a couple of his lectures and have read his book, Spontaneous Evolution. You're right, he is not selling a specific product but he is selling an idea. Not every idea is good. I criticize his ideas because they encourage mistrust, misunderstanding, and misuse of science. Mistrust because he paints a picture of a close-minded scientific community. Misunderstanding because he twists facts. Misuse because his ideas encourage medical treatments, products, and science that is not actually scientific. What it all adds up to are people who forego modern medical treatments and supported scientific theories for ideas that don't actually have any experimental or scientific background.

Here is an example.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zupt6RoQgbM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njSMTfPRz9g

From your comments above Dan you make it sound like there is no greater heresy than to suggest the scientific community might be close-minded. This is indeed strange when one considers the whole historical landscape of scientific research is littered with the blasted reputations, careers and even lives of pioneer thinkers who dared go against the prevailing wisdom of the 'close-minded scientific community'. If you doubt this I encourage you to go and search out some of the many academics who currently can longer get tenure in leading universities because they even dared to mention the word 'design' as opposed to evolution. Lipton is throwing up ideas, suggesting lines of research that may yield results hitherto denied. He would be the first to say his postulating is nowhere complete but it is clear we are not the "victims" of our genes that was believed up until quite recently. I quote Nicola Tesla: "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." I am content that people like Bruce Lipton are pointing in the right direction.

 

[Dan Wilson]

From your comments above Dan you make it sound like there is no greater heresy than to suggest the scientific community might be close-minded.

I am optimistic about the scientific community. I am just against making blanket statements about a field I work in. Is there a specific example of the scientific community being close-minded that you had in mind?

careers and even lives of pioneer thinkers who dared go against the prevailing wisdom of the 'close-minded scientific community'.

There seems to be a misconception about paradigm shifts, the idea that it was one (generally, give or take a few) person going against a whole community isn't exactly right. One of the biggest paradigm shifts in science happened when Joseph Priestly was making the discovery of oxygen during the late 1700's. He had been collaborating and discussing his work with many other scientists/philosophers, even though it was against established wisdom. It is discussed in detail in Steven Johnson's book, The Invention of Air. It is a fascinating book. What usually happens during paradigm shifts is that something new starts to come up in experiments, and it is questioned heavily. It might sometimes look like scientists are responding in a brutal close-minded backlash but that's just the way things work. Evidence suggesting new mechanisms and such need to be put through the ringer. When the dust settles, the evidence speaks for itself.

because they even dared to mention the word 'design' as opposed to evolution.

I'm not familiar with specific situations, but just reading about it here I think that there is good reason to be apprehensive about professors who might try to teach intelligent design. Teaching intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. It just doesn't, there is no way to test such an idea. It's not science. It would be like if a biology professor started lecturing about art for a whole class period. It would be a waste of the students' time, who came to learn about biology.

Lipton is throwing up ideas, suggesting lines of research that may yield results hitherto denied. He would be the first to say his postulating is nowhere complete but it is clear we are not the "victims" of our genes that was believed up until quite recently.

Lipton's general ideas have been around for a while. He doesn't really have any research to support what he says about having an untapped control over our gene expression. It is true that we are not always powerless to our genes, but for some people that's not the case. Some people have genetic mutations that we just can't do anything about, that they have to live with. Someone with progeria isn't going to change their fate by listening to Lipton's advice. It's very sad, but the message Lipton is trying to send can give false hope to people in these unfortunate situations and could detract attention away from gene therapies that could actually help these people.

 

[jpsitig]

Yes it does. Misdiagnosis is something that you know happens. And a percentage of cancer cases experience spontaneous remission. We don't know why exactly, but that's not reason to start believing it's because people rewire their DNA with their brains.

If you "don't know why exactly" then how do can you say this "but that's not reason to start believing it's because people rewire their DNA with their brains."

You just contradicted yourself in one sentence.

 

[Pete Tar]

And you just wrote nonsense because that is not a contradiction but a wise way to live.
How is not knowing something therefore 'reason' to suppose something else? It's reason to not suppose anything at all and investigate further.

 

[jpsitig]

And you just wrote nonsense because that is not a contradiction but a wise way to live.
How is not knowing something therefore 'reason' to suppose something else? It's reason to not suppose anything at all and investigate further.

Who is speaking nonsense?

 

[Dan Wilson]

If you "don't know why exactly" then how do can you say this "but that's not reason to start believing it's because people rewire their DNA with their brains."

You just contradicted yourself in one sentence.

We can say that because there is no evidence for it. Say I find a footprint in the woods and I want to figure out what it is. I can guess that it might be a wolf or wild dog if I know enough about tracking. Even though I'm not exactly sure what it is, I can say for sure it's not a bird.

We can say with quite certainty that remission not caused by people rewriting DNA with their thoughts. We know plenty of mechanisms by which DNA can mutate and change its expression. None of those include thoughts. There is no plausible mechanism for it and no evidence that one exists. We already have clues as to what might be happening in cases where patients go into remission. If I'm going to put time and energy into figuring out what that footprint is, I'm not going to get out my binoculars and look in the trees. Based on what we already have found out, that would be complete nonsense.

 

[Ken Curtis]

I have to emphasize that what I'm debunking here are his claims about genes, evolution, and medicine. It is true that meditation (prayer, contemplation, etc.) can be a very good thing for someone's well-being. Any good doctor would encourage you to make good changes in things like diet and exercise. Your lifestyle can be changed for the better, which can help change gene expression, but none of those things can change the genes themselves. That is where Lipton presents pseudoscience. Meditation is not a cure-all for health complications and mental diseases. Those kinds of methods are good supplements but should by no means be substituted for real medicine. Lipton seems to have no problem suggesting just that in his books. Meditation is definitely a good thing, but it is an easy target for pseudoscientists to attach hype to.

Spoken like a real medical man. Can you please define the term 'real medicine' for me? The medical community is good at naming a group of symptoms and applying drugs to mask their effects, but not always that good at curing patients. They are generally fine technicians but not healers. You seem to have a mindset about health and illness that may not serve you when the 'real medicine' practitioners provide no answers for you. Perspective and beliefs have everything to do with the health of the body and effecting it's restoration to health.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Spoken like a real medical man. Can you please define the term 'real medicine' for me?

By "real medicine" I mean any method that successfully restores the patient's health. Treating the symptoms is not always a masking of an ailment. A lot of times treating the signs and symptoms actually does serve as a physiological solution to an illness. A simple example would be treating chronic inflammation to prevent/cure tissue damage. On the other hand treating something like lower back pain with pain medication would be perfectly reasonable but in very rare cases could be masking late pancreatic cancer. Medicine, of course, is not perfect. However, to say that doctors more often treat signs and symptoms in cases when there is another cause that should be treated instead is quite the statement. Is there anything to support the idea? Meta studies maybe? On a side note, consider the fact that mortality from disease has gone down tremendously just in the past few generations.

Perspective and beliefs have everything to do with the health of the body and effecting it's restoration to health.

Everything? How so?

 

[Ken Curtis]

I ran across this forum on Google while doing a search for something else and since I work from a computer I do not have time, nor the desire to carry on debates about the subject of the medical community. I spent much of the last year in French hospitals ( Triple by-pass surgery and 3 different angioplastic procedures to place stents ). The French doctors were good technicians but completely at a loss about patient care, healing and longterm recovery. They performed the surgical procedures with great skill and prescribed a regime of supporting medications, but always skirted the subject of longterm patient involvement in a sustained recovery. There is plenty of empirical evidence of the mind playing a major role in the longterm return to full health, but you won't find much of it mentioned in the American Medical Journal or in research briefs written by pharmacuetical researchers - and you'll likely never experience it if you insist on rationalist thinking that insists on 'debunking' things because you have not experienced them yourself.


Every year thousands of individuals have by-pass surgery and Angioplasty procedures, but the longterm results are diverse. Some find themselves back in an operating room within a year because their bypasses or their stents have again occluded, while others return to a sustained condition of improved health. In the most cases it is the mental mindset of the individual patient which is the underlying cause. There is certainly evidence to support the premise that the individuals mind was the cause of his coronary/cardiac problems in the first place. This is not only in regard to heart patients, but to all others, but does not suggest that anyone who experiencing a heart attack, is bleeding profusely or losing conciuosness should first have a fast meditation or quickly change his thinking.


I have had enough direct experience of the power of the mind to know that it may well be even more powerful than Bruce Lipton suggests. That the bulk of humanity is oblivious to this fact is evident in the world we live in, but fortunately there are a growing number of indivduals with experiences that, to them, are empirical evidence of the depth of the minds ability to perform functions thought impossible by rationalist standards are well within its capacity. Look around you and marvel at what modern-day man still clings to in the way of beliefs, and you'll agree with P.D. Ouspensky when he said that we are like monkeys in a library. We are advanced enough to realize that the place is full of books but unfortunately, we do not know how to read them.


You stated "However, to say that doctors more often treat signs and symptoms in cases when there is another cause that should be treated instead is quite the statement."


I did not make any such statement. I said "The medical community is good at naming a group of symptoms and applying drugs to mask their effects, but not always that good at curing patients." This means that the medical community has come up with names for thousands of different diseases and ailments and decided on longterm drug treatments which may mask the systems of what the patient is experiencing, but does not heal the patient of the underlying problem. A healed patient is one who no longer needs the drug medications or the technician that prescribed them.


---Quote---
Perspective and beliefs have everything to do with the health of the body and effecting it's restoration to health.
---End Quote---
Everything? How so?
***************


Everything that is, will be in the future or existed in the past was first a function of the mind. You may not believe this, but I do believe you are alive in a point in history where you'll see and experience not only Bruce Liptons contentions but things that will completely mindboggle you and all of the other rationalist 'debunkers'




Face it, Dan, the medical community and the drug companies generate billions of dollars every year and have a serious vested interest in having you believe what they say unquestionably.




Be of good cheer
K. Curtis

 

[Dan Wilson]

There is plenty of empirical evidence of the mind playing a major role in the longterm return to full health, but you won't find much of it mentioned in the American Medical Journal or in research briefs written by pharmacuetical researchers

So where can we find them and can you tell us how it works?

Trpile bypasses are common. It is also not uncommon for an individual to continue to have problems even after surgery. A big reason for this would be because of a failure to change lifestyle, though. Although, the issue could be bigger than just lifestyle, as things like cholesterol, obesity, and diabetes may need to be looked at differently in the future.

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_attia_what_if_we_re_wrong_about_diabetes.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: rokuNewest (Roku | Newest)

Anyways, I appreciate you sharing, I really do, but I have to point out that you're not posting any actual evidence here. Anecdotes only go so far. How is the mind influencing the body in ways you claim? How do you know?

This is not only in regard to heart patients, but to all others, but does not suggest that anyone who experiencing a heart attack, is bleeding profusely or losing conciuosness should first have a fast meditation or quickly change his thinking.

The point of this thread is that you shouldn't rely on those methods for diseases, serious illness, etc. either. Why would you forego medicince for such things?

A healed patient is one who no longer needs the drug medications or the technician that prescribed them.

Ideally, but that can't always happen. You seem to just be making blanket statements about medicine.

 

[Trekkiegirl]

I've read Bruce Lipton's book, I thought it was fascinating. I have a basic knowledge of human biology and a lot of what he says makes sense to me, as a lot of the things you guys that are 'debunking' his theories does too. Has anybody here read a book called "Sick and Tired: Healing the illnesses doctors cannot cure"? It's by a British gastroenterologist and psychologist called Dr Nick Read, who is medical advisor for the IBS Network. I mention it because I feel there is a connection between the arguments on this thread and what Dr Read suggests in his book, which is if medical science has classified all these diseases and come up with drugs to treat/cure them, why do so many people still feel so ill and why is conventional medicine failing them to such an extent that they feel the need to go in desperate search of complementary or alternative therapies in a bid to feel better? Many amazing discoveries, ideas and theories begin life as just that - theories, until somebody finally goes on to prove them. Human beings are more than the sum of their parts - we are not just biological machines, we have minds and emotions too. Why do some groups in conventional medicine find it so hard to accept that if they can't help a patient, somebody else trained in something different might be able to? Maybe the illness didn't have a biological cause. That doesn't mean the patient isn't ill - illness is a subjective experience; if we feel ill, we are ill, regardless of what the cause of that illness is. Just ask sufferers of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, IBS and a host of other conditions that are marginally, if at all, helped by conventional medicine what their experience of illness is. Occasionally in some cases, maybe what the patient really needed was just somebody to listen and to reassure. The drugs used in conventional medicine, while amazing at curing things a lot of the time, sometimes don't work and sometimes give such nasty side effects that the patient is left feeling even more ill and wondering whether the treatment is worth the trouble, especially if it's a long term condition and therefore a long term drug regime! I find it disheartening, sad and somewhat concerning that many doctors are not prepared to even contemplate the idea of integrated medicine - conventional and complementary therapies working side by side; when they know that their drugs are not necessarily helping a patient but sometimes making them feel even more ill. If conventional medicine has failed a patient, for whatever reason, why should it be wrong for a patient to try complementary therapies to see if they help him or her to feel better? Isn't having the patient feeling better the goal of anyone who works in any form of medicine? Just because we don't understand why something works yet, doesn't mean it doesn't work - it's a good excuse to do more research on it, surely? Oh, but I forgot - funding for research generally goes to the big pharmaceutical companies. They wouldn't want to prove that "woo woo" therapies actually have a solid evidence base, because there's no profit to be made in that, is there? Have any of you doctors ever thought about that side of the equation? It seems to me that conventional doctors simply swallow whole (pun intended) whatever the pharmaceutical giants shove down their throats, whatever the potential harm or side-effects. I find that really sad, to be honest.

 

[Pete Tar]

I think it's important to clarify to what extent the claims of body-mind connection/influence are being made. Personally I believe an emotional state is a physical state with impact on general health and ability to recover, as I think do most conventional doctors; but this seems to cross the line by claiming powers of mind over matter (though to me mind *is* matter) that aren't justifiable or within the bounds of rational, evidence based thought. It's an idea only that shouldn't be presented as science as it is not yet that.
I think you'll most conventional medicine cites the will to recover as one of the most significant influences on health, once of course physical medical intervention has done it's part.

 

[Trekkiegirl]

But I haven't found that, unfortunately. What I have found, in my experience, is a significant proportion of doctors who, if their medical interventions don't work, assume that the complaint is therefore somehow the patient's "fault" or "all in their head". It's unhelpful when people are feeling very unwell to basically accuse them of making it up, even if not consciously. (I'm a massage therapist, by the way, currently on the path to train as a physio, and I have clients coming to me who genuinely feel that conventional medicine has failed them because they have basically been dismissed or written off by their doctors when the conventional treatment they were offered didn't make them feel better.)

 

[Dan Wilson]

I don't think it is helpful to develop and use the term "conventional medicine" in this context. Medicine is medicine, if a healing method genuinely works then that is good medicine, be it Eastern, Western, or from a concoction of lizard blood and rat teeth. The problem comes when people who can be helped by medicine end up choosing alternatives that have not been funded, approved (usually for good reason), and don't work because someone made it sound like good science. The power of the mind will not stop diseases from coming our way (whether they be caused by genetics, pathogens, etc), medicine is our best defense against disease. People still have diseases and illnesses because medicine isn't perfect, and the bugs we fight are running right along with us in the race of developing new strategies. Although there are problems in publishing biased results in drug trials, this is being worked on by many who are calling for awareness and the publication of negative results. This problem also seems to be just a speed bump in the progress of medicine, as people are still living longer, healthier, and much safer lives than those who lived just a few decades ago when today's most mundane illnesses were lethal. New knowledge is being discovered and corrections are being made all the time.

They wouldn't want to prove that "woo woo" therapies actually have a solid evidence base, because there's no profit to be made in that, is there? Have any of you doctors ever thought about that side of the equation?

When it comes to new medicines, it wouldn't matter if pharmaceutical companies didn't want to research "woo woo" stuff because if it worked like true medicine should, independent researchers and doctors who have studied it would have good data to present to the world. I'm not a doctor, but doctors are generally capable of critical thinking and looking at the research. They're not perfect, and bad side effects accompanying medication are a possibility that must be mentioned for legal purposes, but doctors and their treatments generally do much more good than harm.

But I haven't found that, unfortunately. What I have found, in my experience, is a significant proportion of doctors who, if their medical interventions don't work, assume that the complaint is therefore somehow the patient's "fault" or "all in their head".

Like I said, doctors aren't perfect and some are worse than others. Some really do act like old dogs that you can't teach new tricks. But although it's neither ideal nor a necessarily concrete diagnosis, telling a patient "it's all in your head" sometimes is what is actually going on, as we have seen on this site with the more extreme example of Morgellon's disease. In cases like these, telling the patient what the problem is and helping them confront it seems like the best thing to do. In other cases, it could be the opposite and there could be something the doctor is not realizing. What kind of cases are you talking about in these experiences and do you think they are representative of the medical community?

 

[Joe Newman]

But although it's neither ideal nor a necessarily concrete diagnosis, telling a patient "it's all in your head" sometimes is what is actually going on, as we have seen on this site with the more extreme example of Morgellon's disease.

I get confused when I see such a statement. Can you or anyone explain it is actually is when you say "it's all in your head"? Is it the disease, they symptoms, a shorthand for something else? What does this statement actually mean?

 

[Jazzy]

diseases like cancer don't have an emotional and psychological origin.

I don't believe that to be entirely true, but don't ask me to be more specific about it - it's not my field at all. I believe that lack of emotional and psychological well-being can make any one of us susceptible to cancer or any other disease. I believe the human body is as complex as a city, maybe as the cosmos. But it's not my field, of course, and it's only my belief. Are you sure about that? Why?

 

[Mick West]

I get confused when I see such a statement. Can you or anyone explain it is actually is when you say "it's all in your head"? Is it the disease, they symptoms, a shorthand for something else? What does this statement actually mean?

"All in your head" means that it's entirely a delusion, an illusion, or a hallucination. If something is all in your head, then there's no component of it in the real world.

But it's a very informal term. Best to say exactly what you mean instead.