"Drugs" without side effects by replicating them with trance.

[The Mentalist]

If someone has already experienced a drug, say marijuana or alcohol, and like that it makes them more loose or whatever they take it for but don't want the negative side effects, couldn't they be hypnotized to make it so that with a trigger word that can feel like they've just smoked a joint, or drank some wine, and be as loose or easy to talk to, have as good a time, or whatever they do the drug for, with hypnosis?

[TaffyE]

couldn't they be hypnotized to make it so that with a trigger word that can feel like they've just smoked a joint, or drank some wine, and be as loose or easy to talk to, have as good a time, or whatever they do the drug for, with hypnosis?
Sure, it can be done.
However, wouldn't it be so much better if the underlying cause of whatever they do the drug for were dealt with?
Then they wouldn't need anything to get them through.

[Merlin]

Using hypnosis you may induce any feelings, such as those drug induced, or create new feelings, perhaps mixing the high of cocaine with the pleasures of orgasm, mixed with the rush of skydiving.

Hypnosis can be fun!

[Unregistered]

Merlin, that sounds like some very fun stuff! How long do you think it would take someone to be that skilled? I suppose if they've already tried the drug and know how it feels it wouldn't be that hard? Would it be a weak sensation if the trance wasn't very deep? Me and a friend are planning on learning hypnosis (not to practice for money, but just for the fun of it, and it's seeming more and more fun every minute :))

[The Mentalist]

Sorry, I was logged out. the above was from me :) .

[Merlin]

Hi Mental,

If you were to get lessons from a skilled hypnotist, it's probably take 2-3 weeks to learn (80-120 class hours).

On your own, who knows.

If the hypnosis is not deep, it'd not feel real at all.

[The Mentalist]

alright, we don't have that much extra money so how much do hypnotists tend to charge for a 80-120 hour set of lessons? And you don't think we'd be any good with just books? And thanks for all of the info you've shared Merlin, I've read a lot of your posts and think your amazing :) .

[norbert]

Hi,

feeling in top pleasure seems to be what you are looking for? Why change your bio chemistry if you can have it in a snap? You can have that right away using your internal heroine (called endorphines). Have a look at NLP. There are quick techniques that allow you to get into any state you want to. And you don't need months of practice.

Have fun

[The Mentalist]

I wanted to learn about hypnosis before I got into that drug like thing, and think hypnosis probably has more to offer than NLP?

[Annie]

Hi Mental,

re : we don't have that much extra money so how much do hypnotists tend to charge for a 80-120 hour set of lessons?

Merlin said : If you were to get lessons from a skilled hypnotist, it's probably take 2-3 weeks to learn (80-120 class hours).

I think she means you would be taught in the hypnotists' *presence* for 4, or so, hours; and then the rest of the time would be like your Homework/practice.


You asked : And you don't think we'd be any good with just books?

nope; as the 1st. several times, you are *guided* there by another person. And while at that *desired* depth, your subconscious mind is given the Recipe for how to access it again, over & over... :)

Annie

[Merlin]

Hi Mental,

it would take 80-120 hours to learn how to control your various feelings. This can be taught in a group environment which saves on cost.
You might also consider learning how to go to the Esdaile state. It alone is far better than any drug.
It'd take a good hypnotist 2 or 3 sessions (1 hour each or so) to teach you.

[norbert]

I wanted to learn about hypnosis before I got into that drug like thing, and think hypnosis probably has more to offer than NLP?
probably :)

[Don]

Of course, you might get a different answer from a NLP Master Prac!
:-)

[norbert]

ya sure Don ? *S*

[skip]

There is a misunderstanding that often goes by the boards in these discussions.

There is the truth that you can duplicate a drug experience, without the use of the drug.

This is because the body/mind is capable of producing the response it origionally had when the drug was used.

This doesnt necessarily mean that you can have the experience, without side effects.

You can "smoke", without using tobacco, and duplicate the 'smoking' experience, and your body will respond as if you are smoking.

You dont take in the tars and nicotine, but that does not mean that your body doesnt respond as if you did.

Would this eventually lead to 'smokless' lung cancer?

Who knows?

It must be remembered that you are duplicating the drug experience, and the unconscious doesnt discriminate between the 'effect' you wanted, and the 'effect' you didnt want. Not to mention the 'effects' that occurred unbeknown to your conscious awareness.

Remember you may not be duplicating the stimulus, but you are duplicating the response, and that response will be fully duplicated.

skip

[Merlin]

Skip,

What you say is possible, especially if you are fully duplicating an experience, which is why I advocate producing specific *feelings* similar to those of a drug.

The best drug IMO is just the Esdaile state. It alone is so euphoric, who needs drugs? :-)

[Annie]

Merlin said : The best drug IMO is just the Esdaile state. It alone is so euphoric, who needs drugs ? :-)

Well, true Merlin ...

been encouraging people, here, to Experiment with *hypnosis :)* now, for 2 years is it ?

reminds me of a Hand-out I used to give, in classes many years ago, about ' hugs'; we'll just substitute *Esdaile-state* here:
" There's no such thing as a bad Esdaile-state; only Great ones.
It's all Natural ... with no preservatives, artificial ingredients, or pesticide residue; and devoid of unwanted side-effects.

The Esdaile-state is naturally sweet, 100% wholesome, energy-efficient; and it's a completely renewable natural resource.

And the Esdaile-state is exceptionally effective for problems like the Monday-blahs " (or any other "crappy" state you'd rather not be in).

You may well announce later : "oh, I forgot how wonderful Heaven is " :)

Never wait until tomorrow to *enjoy the Esdaile-state today* ! :D


Annie

[skip]

Merlin,

Yes, thats just my point. Most of the time there is no distinction made about what 'portion' of the drug stste is to be duplicated. AND there is no way to make that distinction for that portion which is outside of conscious awareness.

And I have no problerm with the idea of using almost exclusively the Esdaile state, because most drugs are designed to help someone tolerate symptoms while the body does the healing anyway.

There ARE drugs that actually actively do specific benificial things, such as antibiotics, but they are in the minority.

skip

[solaris152000]

What is the esdaile state and how can it be obtained??

[Merlin]

Skip,

The bigger problem (as I see it) is balance. How does the inexperienced get the right balance.
90% of the tar response 10% cannabis response?
oops, I wanted more high, not all tar... oh well

Yes, antibiotics are generally good, but still a poison. They often kill off the good stuff too.

[EC]

>>Yes, antibiotics are generally good, but still a poison. They often kill off the good stuff too.<<

A good dose of Probiotics will counter Antibiotics nasty indiscriminate behavior and provide that "balance", and, had a client tell me once that if you get someone else to "smoke" and then just let them blow the smoke in your face, they keep all the tar and you just get the cannabis. I'm not buying it though, just sounds like sloppy seconds to me!

EC

[skip]

Merlin, EC,

Both of you are right.

I think the key here is focus. More specifically what you focus on.

See too many people do not have a well formed outcome, and that is the crux of the problem.

If you want to duplicate a drug experience, the first thing is to carefully determine specifically what you want to do this for. If it is for the relief of some symptoms to allow for, or promote healing, then forget the drug duplication and focus on what you do want, the alleviation of symptoms and promote healing, and one way could be Esdaile.

If you want a specific effect, say reduction of inflamation, or 'improved' organ function, or some such, then you focus on specifically that, AND you can be very creative in so doing.

The only reason, I have come across, to deliberately, specifically duplicate a drug experience is in the recreational realm, and I cannot help but wonder why someone would limit themselves to just the cannabis experience, or the extasy experience, when they have an entire pharmacutical company between their ears. You can actually have any experience you can imagine and more, and you dont ever need to mention "drugs". Go for the outcome, instead od duplicating the experience and your body/mind will produce the results without the downside.

And a side note. Every thing we ingest, or inhale is poisionous in certain amounts. That eating leafy green vegetables is considered benificial in some quantities does not mean it is totally good, it means it is good in balance.

There are fools who want to throw out the baby with the bath water, because of some mistaken notion, or some belief, or because they are incapable of moderating their own behavior, and assume everyone else is like them.

I won't rule out anything that works, as long as, in balance, it is benificial. If something else is equally benificial with less down side, then obviously I would choose that. AND there are some things I will simply not choose to put in my body/mind because I value myself, and the benifit to cost ratio doesnt suit me.

For someone to deliberately risk tetnus, or small pox, or malaria, simply because of some half baked doctrine, or just because there is some risk, is idiocy. Cooper refuses to risk rabies or heartworm. That is a wise decision. Refusal to take advantage of good precautions is tantamount to going to a Calcutta baudy house without your raincoat.

For someone to refuse to use insulin, or pain medication at the dentist, simply because they are too stiff necked to allow themselves flexability, is just arrogance at the extreme.

These issues are personal choices, and each of us chooses for ourselves, we should be rejoycing that we have the choices rather than some, who have no right, try and tell others how they should choose.

cheers,

skip

[Merlin]

>A good dose of Probiotics will counter Antibiotics nasty indiscriminate behavior and provide that "balance"...

Yes EC, I agree. But the average person doesn't know that, and the MD prescribing the drugs most often doesn't say anything about probiotics, or for that matter, which probiotics?
How much?
How long?

[EC]

Hi Merlin,

Pharmaceutical company control/influence over MD training and medication !

[Annie]

Hi Merlin & EC,

>A good dose of Probiotics will counter Antibiotics nasty indiscriminate behavior and provide that "balance"...

Yes EC, I agree. But the average person doesn't know that, and the MD prescribing the drugs most often doesn't say anything about probiotics, or for that matter, which probiotics?
How much?
How long?
~~
getting some bad-news Outa the way 1st :

I taught Nutrition, beneficially, for over 10 years so I thought about contributing to this topic yesterday (but am increasingly hesitant being harmed here daily).

I no longer offer specific Nutritional suggestions, upon learning in 1999 I was "actually practicing Medicine, without such a License". However insane the Laws may be, I will obey them.

MD's don't recommend "Nutritional supplementation" as getting next to NO training in that, they don't know themselves. thus, the other "chemical Drug-culture" continues reigning top-dog.


now for some Good news :

Our mind, for optimal health, maintains several lbs. of Bacteria (many different kinds) in *balance* inside our intestines.
Antibiotics, in rare instances necessary for the continuing of our Life, significantly damage this balance.

Most commercial products offer restoring but the
1. " Lactobacillus Acidophilus " &/or
2. " Bifidobacterium bifidum " :
the 2 predominant friendly species of bacteria within the Small/Large - intestinal tracts, respectively.

Their potency being short-lived outside of their normal environment, by the time you get them into your system most won't be (viable=alive) anymore. This is why it will state on the Label (for example) : " 3 *billion* Viable at the time of manufacture ". One way to ensure greater potency is to encapsulate them with a beneficial-to-them medium, like Algae.

I prefer to not inflict on my body any Anti-biotics, but I have been know to do so : and quickly replenish my body with the best available " SPECTRA-biotic Probiotic " containing, in addition to the above 2, as well :
3. Lactobacillus casei
4. Lactobacillus bulgaricus
5. Lactobacillus plantarum
6. Lactobacillus salivarius
7. Streptococcus faecium
8. Streptococcus thermophilus, plus
9. a blend of (broad-spectrum) enzymes, etc.

I take 2-4 caps daily each morning, until I witness the evidence of my food, once again, being both properly Digested plus Eliminated.

Since I am only *replenishing* beneficial Critters :) normally being reproduced by my mind daily, I can continue ingesting 1 cap for as long as I want without harmful results.


Annie

[EC]

Hi Annie,

Wondered how long it would take you to jump into this conversation. Don't be concerned about contributing in the area of medicine, at least I am convinced you know of what you speak.

Very good and accurate information.

(1) You would have a defense against "practicing medicine without a license" if you made it clear that you were only sharing (consulting) on information that is everyone's constitutional right to know. As you may or may not know, that is how Naturopathic Doctors get by in most states as they are only allowed licensing in about 13 or 14 states (largely due to the influence by allopathy).

(2) In most states RN's have a free rein to counsel, advise, do whatever they want although your state may be different ?

ps: For that elimination of waste you mentioned (which is most critical) you might look at "OxyPowder". You can do a search and find it, created by a Houston Texas Naturopath and is powerful stuff. Contains Germanium if you are familiar with that.

EC

[Simple Guy]

Hi,

I've been using probiotics, also. There are many things that adversely affect
the internal flora, including antibiotics given to farmed animals and fish,
preservatives and additives, etc. A few times a year, I cycle through
some good quality probiotics to help keep things in balance. This is in
addition to regularly eating some organic yoghurt containing multiple
strains of live/active cultures. (I'm in outstanding health.)

As for the drugs and state discussion, I was amused when I read the
Acknowledgments page in Bandler & Grinder's The Structure of Magic.
Among those thanked are: "the makers of Folgers Coffee, without whose
fine product we would not have made it through the long nights." Were
they kidded by good natured friends that they could have anchored the
caffeine state and not needed the coffee? ;) I've wondered about this
while enjoying my coffee.

[Terry]

"We don't have that much extra money" Neither do most of us, but is it "extra"?
If you are spending money on drugs, which you not only don't require, but which also cause damage to the mind, then replacing them and their cost with a self hyonosis course would be a saving of both money and health. How much is your health worth? It never ceases to amaze me that people ask about getting help with situations that they have incured at some expense to their budget, yet want both expert help, and cheap to boot...... Now it is possible that you are asking about something purely from interest, and are not taking any drugs, but in that case, you also don't need to do the hypnosis thing either. Terry
Cost by the way, can be anywere from $200.00 to $500.00, if given by someone who knows what they are doing, but it is worth every penny when you begin to use it......

[Annie]

Hi EC,

I have known for over a decade that *behaviors* like Autism & Alzheimers are changable by the person having made these decisions. Insights like these are how I was able to help some of these people.

I stopped being interested in serving as a ' Nutritional counselor ' about the time that

I realized the *mind* is more than capable of changing whatever erroneous behavioral-decisions it may have decided, including such chronic decisions as Diabetes, and Cancer.

So, really you can plug whatever other decisions in here, say for instance "Anxiety" or "Depression".

Is this how you help these people as well, EC ?


Annie

[TaffyE]

All interesting points of view.
I still believe that dealing with the underlying reason for taking "whatever" so that they can feel the way they want to feel would be a more beneficial route to take.

[EC]

Hi Annie,

You said in an earlier post on this thread >I take 2-4 caps daily each morning, until I witness the evidence of my food, once again, being both properly Digested plus Eliminated <<

Then in this last post you said >I realized the *mind* is more than capable of changing whatever erroneous behavioral-decisions it may have decided, including such chronic decisions as Diabetes, and Cancer. <

And you said that you gave up being a nutritional counselor as if nutrition (while you do imbibe) is not important. You leave me puzzled ??

"On the one hand you agree that "good nutrition" is important enough that you take probiotics. On the other hand, you believe that the mind can handle all these problems ??

Gets rather confusing doesn't it?

After 30 years of medicine, I can see where you would be less than an advocate of allopathic medicine, at the same time I would be surprised to learn that you would cast aside all medical and/or nutrition ?

Actually, I believe I "know" where you are coming from. I think you are aware from my previous postings that I too believe that the mind can heal, and is more powerful than any of us can hope to know. "It can heal you and it can kill you". At the same time, If I ever portrayed that I believe that hypnosis or the mind singularly holds all the answers, I didn't intend to because I do not believe this to be true, and the reason is quite simple: No single therapy or medical intervention, including the best hypnosis out there ever has, and IMO, ever will cure all things for all people. I believe an integrated approach to health is necessary. Some would call mind-body medicine.

Many, many people die daily from a lifetime of bad nutritional habits, consuming processed foods and clogging the ole intestinal tract until colon polyps develop from the toxic build-up and then turn cancerous. Was that the result of a belief or just bad habits and lack of nutritional knowledge ?

Is the best hypnotherapy, including addressing forgiveness and guilt going to affect anything if they keep on pouring processed foods/toxic waste down the ole hatch ?

But, this is probably going beyond what the average poster to this board dabbles in, as most hypnotherapy work is for specific behavioral issues and not really "health" as such. So I will end with this:

Can we forego the nutritional/physical side of our problems in hopes of hypnotizing all our physical ailments away?

I don't think it wise.


EC

[Annie]

Hi EC,

EC : After 30 years of medicine, I can see where you would be less than an advocate of allopathic medicine, at the same time I would be surprised to learn that you would cast aside all medical and/or nutrition ?

Annie : No, EC - I have not " cast aside all medical and/or nutrition "; and please do not choose mis-representing my position with such erroneous "all"-generalizations, as such distorting is not noble. I would not enjoy thinking that you pride yourself in so doing, am I correct ?
~

EC : No single therapy or medical intervention, ever will cure all things for all people. I believe an integrated approach to health is necessary. Some would call *mind/body* medicine.

Annie : agreed, and (it was my choice in Hi-lighting your " mind-body " wording) so
notice : the word Mind *preceding* the word Body.
Have you considered, carefully, this process, EC ?).
~

EC : Many, many people die daily from a lifetime of bad nutritional habits, consuming processed foods and clogging the ole intestinal tract until colon polyps develop from the toxic build-up and then turn cancerous. Was that the result of a belief or just bad habits and lack of nutritional knowledge ?

Annie : Your preferred Medical-model is perpetuating erroneous beliefs like :
1. Lack of nutritional knowledge causes cancer, and
2. Smoking causes cancer, and (what-have-you).
In order
for such statements to hold true, they should hold true Generally for such people, but clearly that is not the case.

Personally, I can introduce you to dozens of over-85-year-olds, or for that matter have enjoyed the friendship of several centenarians :
1. enjoying their daily candy-habits, canned/cooked meals, while -
2. daily-smoking, who never did develop either : diabetes, cancers including of the lung/intestines, or c.o.p.d., or (what-have-you).

such challenges are advanced thru -
1. harmful social-beliefs/engineering, and
2. subsequent erroneous maternal (womb) - imprinting, and
3. resulting limiting-beliefs adopted by each embryo, neo-nate, and
4. resulting in such limiting-realities being recycled, & coupled with other bad habits, re-inforcing the mis-perceptions advanced by harmful social engineering, etc. & so forth
~

EC : Is the best hypnotherapy, including addressing forgiveness and guilt, going to affect anything if they keep on pouring processed foods/toxic waste down the ole hatch ?

Annie : Yes, if the hypnotist is skilled to help in these areas.

Consider this, EC :
while Ingesting especially 'nutrient-Rich'- foods acts in *supporting* our bio-chemical processes ...
' Sub-consious ' mind acts in *guiding* all nutrients for our bio-chemical processes;
as
this being the same Subconscious-mind *directing* 1 single undifferentiated cell into developing an entire human being, in the 1st. place.

If you'll give this but some additional careful observation in different "reality" contexts, you will realize the Subconscious is endowed/blessed with far more ability than most have assumed to date being potentially possible ...
~

EC: But, this is probably going beyond what the average poster to this board dabbles in, as most hypnotherapy work is for specific behavioral issues and not really "health" as such.

Annie : the model from which I proceed in my work succeeds by understanding that "specific behavioral issues" can be transformed into *being Healthy*, EC :)
~

EC : the mind can heal, and is more powerful than any of us can hope to know. "It can heal you and it can kill you".

Annie : true
~

EC : Can we forego the nutritional/physical side of our problems in hopes of hypnotizing all our physical ailments away? I don't think it wise.

Annie : More "physical ailments" than not, are the direct results of "harmful beliefs/decisions" perpetuated by the Sub-conscious; AND

we can help facilitate *Synergistic balance*


Annie

[Simple Guy]

It is irresponsible to state that it is an "erroneous belief" that "smoking causes
cancer and (what-have-you)." Smoking isn't done inepedent of other factors,
but it is a risky behavior that, in and of itself, is extremely dangerous. You
can find people that survive all kinds of risky behaviors: war, motorcycle
riding, etc. That they do so does not negate the additional risk inherent
in their behaviors. The human body wasn't intended to be smoked like
a Christmas ham.

[Annie]

> The human body wasn't intended to be smoked like a Christmas ham.

True.

And personally I have never had a desire to inflict on my own body, what other people call 'recreational' drugging using tobacco, LSD or alcohol, etc .

And I teach people how to enjoy their life without dependence on such sorry crutches.

That said, neither " tobacco, LSD or alcohol " - use causes cancer. Even Merlin agrees with that.

Also, it is irresponsible to twist someone's post into something else, continuously intenting dis-crediting that person, Simple.

Please, I'm sure you can find more positively-beneficial ways to spend your time.


Annie

[Don]

I guess those thousands and thousands of lab animals that developed cancer after being put in envronments where they had to smoke had a bad mental attitude?
:-)

[Simple Guy]

Annie writes: "Also, it is irresponsible to twist someone's post into something
else, continuously intenting dis-crediting that person, Simple." It's probably
needless for me to say that I haven't done so, nor is it my intention or desire
to do this to anyone. If others believe that I have done this to Annie, or
anyone else, please point out where. Thank you.

[Merlin]

Simple,

There is no causal link between smoking and cancer. Smoking in and of itself is not the problem (wrt cancer). Smoking is more of a 'symptom' just as a fever is not the cause of infections, yet if you have an infection, you can expect a fever. It's almost 100% but fever is not the causal issue.

Smoking is bad for health in that the tar coats the inner body and is difficult for the body to clean.

[Merlin]

>I guess those thousands and thousands of lab animals that developed

Hi Don,

It may surprise you to know that humans aren't animals.
Although there are biological similarities.

Animals often get dis-eases which humans are immune to. Humans get dis-eases which animals are immune to.

Even within the human species, some humans are more tolerant to various dis-eases than others.

Humans and humaniods also have a different mind too.
(that is the basis of hypnosis :-)

[skip]

Merlin,

You said: "There is no causal link between smoking and cancer."

Technically that may be true.

Neither is there a causal link between driving and death by automobile accident.

Is there any research to support this claim that you could direct me to?

thanks,

skip

[Simple Guy]

Merlin,

Respectfully, we see this differently. Looking at the epidemiological stats
and given that cancer frequently occurs at sites of irritation (for smokers this
includes the mouth, esophagus, lungs, etc.), I'm left with no reasonable
doubt that the tobacco derranges the body on a cellular level. One out
of two smokers are going to meet their demise from a smoking related
illness, including cancer.

I don't dismiss animal studies here. Living tissue doesn't fair well in the
presence of noxious fumes. The most relevant experiment, is one
that millions of smokers have subjected themselves to by smoking.
Were they not to have done so, the numbers of cancers would not
have been so high, I most certainly believe.

Other factors play an important part in the expression of any disease.
That aside, I'd hate for smokers (or would be smokers) to be encouraged
to smoke by those who deny a causal link. There is also the issue of
emphesema, cataracts, impotence (and lessened sensations for females),
heart disease, etc.

[Merlin]

So, driving cuses death?
or collisions of automobiles cause injury/death?
People can drive day after day without any risk of death from the driving, right?

Doesn't then, by the same analogy drinking water cause death, since I can show that 100% of all people who regularly drink water die. That statistic is far worse than for smoking or driving.

If we assume driving causes death, and never look at accidents and vehicle/traffic safety, we'll never effect the actual problem, will we. Likewise with smoking or drinking water.

I know what I suggest is controversial, but if we continue to do what we've always done, we'll continue to get what we've always got
better to change and progress :)

Dr Hamer (in my opinion) moves us in that direction, though I don't think he has the complete answer.

Combining his ideas & Parkhill's work on cancer indicate to me that we should go another direction.

http://www.alternative-doctor.com/cancer/hamers_page.htm
http://www.neue-medizin.com/interv2a.htm
http://www.neue-medizin.com/hamereng.htm
http://membres.lycos.fr/biologie/english/booklet/booklet.htm

[Merlin]

Yes Simple, we disagree.

If everyone thought the same and never disagreed, no progress would be made.

[Annie]

EC,

ending your post, with : " Can we forego the nutritional/physical side of our problems in hopes of hypnotizing all our physical ailments away?
I don't think it wise. "

Thank you for caring. I realize you were trying to be helpful with your counsel, and I appreciate the time & thought you gave your post.

And I agree with you on this : For *fortifying/supporting/maintaining Good health*, yes - supplementing can be beneficial. As I've previously said, I continue so personally; and if Nutritionists were to teach it that way, people wouldn't end-up being misled.

Where the problem is compounded, (& btw, here is why the Medical-profession gets upset about it, and rightly so) is when Nutrition-counselors start recommending/suggesting : "x,y,z" (fill-in your favorite remedy) in order to "Cure chronic ill-ness, dis-ease". (in red to hi-light it) Not only is that practicing Medicine whilst not holding a Medical-license; but more to the point : such measures, additionally, mislead people into believing they "got sick" for lack of "more oxygen, more homeopathy, more ... ". True, these methods aren't near as toxic as the ones Medical doctors additionally inflict on such sufferers; but in the case of cancer - they're still stuck inside the Medical-model.

Now, I trust that most M.D.s ' genuinely want to help ', so it is only for lack of *accepting a more successful model* than the one they're using now.

Take the case of "cancer", for example : It's common knowledge now that the 4 Medical-interventions in that situation remain :
1. Radiation = Burning-away the parts
2. Surgery = cutting-up the body, piece-meal
3. Chemo = yes, the admission's been made of Poisoning
4. Hospice services.

So, I ask you : isn't it about time that people search somewhere else, for *The answers* ?

This being a Hypnosis-forum, where might one search, AND Find ... the solution, do you think - EC ?

(darn it, Merlin : she always beats me to it, lol )

Yes, but see : 1,000's of Hamer's research-studies, plus many years of Steve Parkhill's successes, and yet further refined by others of us, is worth a serious Study by you ...

Conventional medical practices have much to offer us that is *truely beneficial*.

Yet, these conditions will be satisfied by *Healing the traumatic emotions* causing these ill dis-eases.


Annie

[EC]

Hi Merlin,

May I agree and disagree ?

I agree that Hamer doesn't have the complete answer. He has just moved from one side of the fence to the other. Hamer has just realized that all illness is not purely pathological and has applied his pathological training and research ability to the psychosomatic side of the equation. He is a neophyte to the true mental processes of disease. He learned that there is a significant mental factor but he knows not what to do about it actually.

I also agree with your statement that "if we continue to do what we've always done, we'll continue to get what we've always got". That brings me to the point of my posting:

As long as we continue to "line up" across from each other we will not likely ever find significant answers to illness. There are those that adamantly defend allopathy, there are those that defend naturopathy and there are those that believe that hypnosis (mental processes) hold the key.

Being rather bold here, I am going to say that all are right, and all are wrong, and all have an important contribution, but, alone each can only possibly heal 1/3 of the people at best.

An Example:

Every human has equal opportunity to have cancer but only some of us get to experience it. So why do some get it, some don't, some as children, some as adults, some aged, some smoke, some don't, some smoke for 50 years and get it, some for 20 ?

Consider this: It all comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Immune system! The only thing standing between me, you, all of us and disease, is our immune system.

The biggest enemy of proper immune function is STRESS. I am including the many forms of mental anxiety into the simple term stress. Stress places a heavy load on immune function, the body stays in a "fight or flight" syndrome. Imagine holding the accelerator on your vehicle on the floor for a couple weeks. Likely kill the rascal. Same thing happens to the body it just takes longer.

Unhealthy feelings/beliefs are a form of stress. One might choose to smoke to "relieve" some of this stress. Smoking might help one to realize cancer at 60 years old or so, it really depends on when the toxins are able to overcome the immune system. Actually the "stress", the lowered immune function, is the real cause.

Hamer is kinda right and mostly wrong. Shock doesn't cause cancer. Prolonged stress or lack of proper nutrition, either or both were already heading one right along the path. The shock just pushed their immune system over the cliff.

There is most certainly a significance to what part of the body is affected by disease. "That" is the language of the stress, if stress is at the root. But then again that takes validation. Sometimes bladder cancer just results from all those toxins just sitting there, impregnating the bladder walls as it is the holding tank for toxic waste, Kinda like the colon.

I find it wise for each of us to:

1. Visit a good hypnotist to get our mental affairs in order. Kick stress!
2. Visit a good Naturopath to keep our immune system humming !
3. Visit a good allopath when we fall over the dog and bust a leg.

Now if we did one and two first, three won't hurt so bad (hypnosis) and the leg will heal faster (immune strength).

Does smoking cause cancer?

Yes and No!

EC

[Annie]

Hi EC,

>Actually the "stress", the lowered immune function, is the real cause. Shock doesn't cause cancer. Prolonged stress or lack of proper nutrition, either or both were already heading one right along the path. The shock just pushed their immune system over the cliff.

There's validity to your comments here.

Yet, "Concentration-camp" survivors, ECT-survivors, & other Trauma-survivors who have suffered unspeakably for years, without a flicker of hope (often unimaginably for those being blessed with a more sheltered life) - according to your theory, this should mean 70-90% of these people are going to succumb to cancer, but is this the case ?

Where is your evidence of that ?
~

> The biggest enemy of proper immune function is STRESS. I am including the many forms of mental anxiety into the simple term stress. Stress places a heavy load on immune function, the body stays in a "fight or flight" syndrome. Imagine holding the accelerator on your vehicle on the floor for a couple weeks. Likely kill the rascal. Same thing happens to the body it just takes longer.

yup, been there, done that : especially when it comes to "flight" (as my friends have joked "it's a darn good thing you haven't volunteered for Military-duty, you would've died the 1st. day you were issued a verbal Order"). yup, I remain very sensitive.

According to your theory, I shouldn't be alive anymore, either. But - fortunately,
1. I both love accept/myself as well as
2. know without doubt I am respected/loved deeply forever, both by a few people & by God.
3. Instantaneously, I forgive people as they harm me (there's a few I'm still working on) and
4. I know, via hypnosis, how to transport myself into multiple simultaneously-Happy universes
~

> Consider this: It all comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Immune system! The only thing standing between me, you, all of us and disease, is our immune system.

Gettin' warmer :) :
You can think of our immune system as essentially our personal "military-department" : you know, Discover-Inactivate-Overpower-Destroy ' miscroscopic ' critters with the same intent as us.
and
you know, our mind can operate on the same principles:
1. Discover : the events in which Virulent negative-emotions were created,
2. Inactivate : or neutralize uncovered negative-emotions thru Forgiveness :)
3. Overpower : Loving is the *strongest* Healing-force anywhere
4. Destroy : desire to re-live those negative emotions, so they can't hurt/dis-ease/destroy anymore. AND choose living-out of Positive ones, instead

It's amazing how Well this process has succeeded for many, many people - EC
~

> Unhealthy feelings/beliefs are a form of stress.

bingo : Unhealthy feelings/beliefs;
tho
in cancer, it usually plays out as being some event with Emotions generated so negatively-strong *and* sustained, that ...

in fact, from having worked Hospice (way-too-long !), I can relate this : since these people have decided they're on the way out anyway, whenever I sensed they might be Open still, I would strike up a conversation. Do you know how many of these people ended-up saying : "Listen, if it's just a simple matter of whether, or not, I *forgive* (whomever) - the answer is NO ! I'd rather die, thank you ". and die, they did - just as they wanted to. Now EC, I've witnessed this happening FAR more than it serving as mere co-incidence.
~

> Does smoking cause cancer? Yes and No!
There is most certainly a significance to what part of the body is affected by disease. "That" is the language of the stress, if stress is at the root. Sometimes bladder cancer just results from all those toxins just sitting there, impregnating the bladder walls as it is the holding tank for toxic waste, Kinda like the colon.

I know just where you're coming from, EC - as I once was hung-up there, myself. As a matter of fact, Steve had a time *Gently asking...challenging...prodding...suggesting to me a more successful model. And I'd say, "no, you don't understand; see - it's really this way, blah ... " - lol. then, 1 fine day, after I had exhausted (my more-limited map : which he praised as being more expansive than others' maps in most respects), I decided : "glory be, let's see how this map wears... ". This proved being another *paradyne*-shift EC, I should've made to begin with, for the world hasn't been the same since .
~

I find it wise for each of us to:
1. Visit a good hypnotist to get our mental affairs in order. Kick stress!
2. Visit a good Naturopath to keep our immune system humming !
3. Visit a good allopath when we fall over the dog and bust a leg.

if the fracture is a compound-type needing : surgery, screws, sutures & cast, I support # 1 & 3, in that order .

(the last time I visited our Naturopath, she said : " if everybody kept themselves as emotionally-resilient and healthy as you, 9/10 of Drs. would be out of Business !", and I said "yup, that's the plan - lol" )

> But then again that takes validation.
Right

Let us guide/encourage people in
*validating their God-granted powers of >self-Healing<*, their MIND :) in charge of that.


Annie

[skip]

Merlin,

Thanks for the references.

If I understand correctly, Dr Hammar lost his license in 1986 because of his beliefs and practices. And unlike the first article, I do not subscribe to the theory that 'opposition' automaticaly means that he is right, and a martyr.

The time line does mean that his theories have been around for about 20 years.

I didnt find but one reference, to any place, which had given his methods, any sort of clinical trial, and Im not even sure they did. The University of Trnava did apparently endorse his theories. According to Google U of T is in Slovokia. Now I might have overlooked it, and I most certainly dont speak the language, but nowhere on any of the U of T sites could I find a reference to a school of medicine, much less the study they did on Dr Hammer's theories. Engineering, Law, Business, yes, so it is concievable that I missed the reference to med school.

Do you have any other references to studies, double bind preferably, or is this the only one?

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning about driving. I agree smoking doesnt cause cancer any more than driving causes death by automobile. There is no DIRECT causal link. BUT there is a direct correlation between those who do smoke, use tobacco, and get respritory, and or throat, mouth, and lip cancer, verses the rest of the non smoking population.

BUT to assume that smoking isnt related, and that Dr Hammer is right, IS to assume that smokers have a disproportionate percentage, of catastrophic events in their lives, as opposed to the rest of the population. Because they most certainly DO have a disproportionate rate of lung, throat, mouth and lip cancer. Further it ASSUMES that snuff dippers, and tobacco chewers, must not only have a disproportionate amount of catastrophic events, BUT they MUST ASLO have ALL had the SAME KIND of catastrophic event. To accept Dr Hammer's theory you must defy both logic and reality. To me that means the 'other university' mentioned, that refuses to do any study based on his work, inst necessarily persecuting Dr Hammer, they might simply be refusing to waste time and money on something that contradicts the cancer incidence rate evidence.

Personally I think that's where no reasearch is needed to realize that Hammer's theory falls apart, but I am willing to learn more if there is any.

Please dont let the belief filter out the use of the brain, just because you want it to be so. Normally you are smatert than that Merlin, so there must be something else to this.

I'll offer you something that in my opinion, IS more useful, that you and others may find to be of value.

It is the destruction of the fallacious belief that cancer = death. First of all it is easy to prove. Second it doesnt have to rely on the 'people are broken model' of some catastrophic event damaging them, or their mother doing something to them in the womb. It deals directly with where the cancer patient is, and their greatest fear.

How cancer might originate is relevent to prevention of cancer. It is relevent if the "cause" is continuing to manifest the cancer. But the 'people are broken model' hasnt proved that.

When dealing with a client who has cancer or any disease, I focus on what they want, their outcome and generally that is to be "well". And Ill go, and take them, wherever their belief system needs to go, to accomplish that.

And my experience (70 + with mixed results), thus far indicates there is no one size fits all. To assume so is tantamount to a surgeon who thinks gall bladders are the cause of all ills. "The operation was a sucess, unfortunately the patient died."

And lest you think I am claiming something, like others seem to be unable to resist, my only current cancer client is a young woman, double mastectomy, just started chemo, and me working with her on the cancer, immune system boost, and esteem issues. When she is declared cancer free, it will have been her doing, not mine, not the doc's, not the chemo, HER DOING!

I dont exactly disagree with you about smoking and cancer, I just think there are better hills to choose to die on.

So far, no more than I know now, I am deeply suspicious about Hammer's theories, because they dont fit the cancer incidence rates, which as far as I can tell arent influenced by belief. If Dr Hammer's theories coincided with cancer incident rates, I would give them more credence, since they run counter to what actually occurrs it seems obvious that they may be also counter to the truth.

I look forward to more information.

thanks,

skip

[EC]

Hi Annie,

>>I know just where you're coming from, EC - as I once was hung-up there, myself. <<

We are on the same side here Annie. I too believe that the belief system is the most critical in good health, everything derives from that. At the same time, I realize that a one-sided approach is (as Merlin said) "what we have" and we will continue to get "what we get". That has always been the problem.

I too have seen, participated in wonderous change through hypnosis, and there was a time when I believed that it, the belief system was the "cure-all." Then I realized that any approach that is "one-sided" doesn't work for most of the people most of the time as far as illness and in fact, for most anything else as well.

Once again, and think you agree, it all comes down to the fact that the immune system is what is standing between us and disease, us and death. That being the case, no matter what we like to believe, the immune system must be tended to from a mental as well as physical approach, it does not live off healthy emotions alone.

So again, does smoking cause cancer?

Only when the toxins overcome the immune systems ability to "throw them out". Generally this doesn't happen until one is older, stops exercising, eating right, thinking positive!!

ps: Those that are "hyper" (form of stress) on love and life, enjoy the health benefits of a "positive" attitude. That has a different effect on fight-flight. So no, you should not have died long ago. Concentration camp folks also had a different mental attitude, while stress was certainly a factor, the mental attitude was to survive. Therein lies the difference. Mental attitude can "see-one-through for a long time but it won't be one hundred years or so unless we consider the nutritional aspect.

EC

[Don]

>I guess those thousands and thousands of lab animals that developed

Hi Don,

It may surprise you to know that humans aren't animals.
Although there are biological similarities.

Animals often get dis-eases which humans are immune to. Humans get dis-eases which animals are immune to.

Even within the human species, some humans are more tolerant to various dis-eases than others.

Humans and humaniods also have a different mind too.
(that is the basis of hypnosis :-)


Hi, Merlin.

Well, finally something we can disagree upon.
:-)

I would contend that humans are definitely animals. Certainly saying that some animals don't get the diseases of other animals does not mean that both are not animals. Cats can't get all the same diseases as dogs. Cows don't get the same diseases as aardvarks. All that does is show they are different species, not that they aren't animals.

Yes, indeed, human are a different species than aardvarks.

In a similar way, Macintosh computers don't get the "diseases" (ie: malware in the form of viruses, trojan horses, etc.) that computers using Microsoft Windows get. Yet both are computers.

Methinks it's just semantics.

[Don]

First, let me say that I deeply admire the discussion in this thread! Great ideas, differences, and honest opinion for all to read and comment upon. Wonderful!

So let me put in my 2¢.

First, tho, I want to talk about a man who, for many years, was my best friend. He died many years ago as a result of AIDS. At the time, researchers were looking for one chemical or biological substance that would combat the problem, and AIDS-related deaths soared. Over time, they came to use the "****tail," a mixture of several substances which has helped to extend lives.

This is not meant to open a discussion of AIDS or treatment for it. If people wish to do so, please start a new thread.

Rather, I'd just like to point out that people here have been looking for a single cause to cancer. It is caused by cigarettes OR stress OR immune system deficiencies, etc.

I would like to respectfully suggest that humans are far more complex than the monocausation theories imply. If, for example, cigarettes by themselves cause cancer, why does one person who smokes get lung cancer and a friend who also smokes not get cancer? Why does one person in a high-stress situation get cancer while another doesn't?

I would suggest that looking for one cause isn't going to cut it. Rather, cancer may be the result of a series of causes and opportunities that function together in a symbiotic way. Take away any of the causes or opportunities and the symbiosis is broken. Stop smoking and the chances of getting cancer go down. Reduce stress and the chances of getting cancer go down. Change beliefs about how one is liable to get cancer and the chances of getting cancer go down.

Just as I think it is appropriate to say that humans are a complex symbiosis of mind/body/spirit, I think it is also appropriate to say that cancer is caused by a complex symbiosis of causality and opportunism. Break that symbiosis and cancer cannot develop.

As a result, it can appear that changing any individual behavior is preventing the cancer, and hence must be the cause. I would contend that the cause is the symbiosis of several causes, known and perhaps unknown. Again, if the symbiosis is broken, the disease doesn't manifest.

In other words, when it comes to the "cause" of cancer, I would contend that all of the monocauses listed so far are correct--but incomplete.

[Annie]

Hi EC,

I want to tell you how much *I appreciate you participating here in this Group*. I say that because
no matter our differences of opinion, as they are on this "cancer"-subject, you come across as a *gracious* person: very much like 100's of other people I have, and do now, enjoy communicating with on the Net :-). Steve, Merlin, you & I'm sure some others are very *pleasant* people to interact with; so thank you very much, EC !

You ended with : "ps: Those that are "hyper" (form of stress) on love and life, enjoy the health benefits of a "positive" attitude. That has a different effect on fight-flight. So no, you should not have died long ago. Concentration camp folks also had a different mental attitude, while stress was certainly a factor, the mental attitude was to survive. Therein lies the difference. Mental attitude can "see-one-through" for a long time but it won't be one hundred years or so unless we consider the nutritional aspect. "

EC, as I continue sharing with others, I "value Healthy-nutrition, highly" as well as "positive mental attitudes" Both go without saying.

AND it is quite ok with me, really -if you choose to Hang-on to your preferred theories. I will not try to change you. What you choose believing is *your Choice, always* !

Yet, your personal beliefs can not negate - what I realized being true in my own personal experience with Leukemia, as well as other people who I have helped recover from cancer.
AND
it is those successes I want to share with others, so anyone so "suffering" still, can draw *HOPE as well as Inspiration* ... and you wouldn't deny me/us that, right ?

I just posted to Solaris' "confused" - thread; have you read that ?


Annie
~~~~~~~
Hi Annie,

>>I know just where you're coming from, EC - as I once was hung-up there, myself. <<

We are on the same side here Annie.

[Merlin]

>Merlin,

>Thanks for the references.

>If I understand correctly, Dr Hammar lost his license in 1986 because of his beliefs and practices. And unlike the first article, I do not subscribe to the theory that 'opposition' automaticaly means that he is right, and a martyr.

Dr. Esdaile effectively lost his too.
He was forbidden to continue practicing medicine.

>The time line does mean that his theories have been around for about 20 years.
>I didnt find but one reference, to any place, which had given his methods, any sort of clinical trial, and Im not even sure they did. The University of Trnava did apparently endorse his theories. According to Google U of T is in Slovokia. Now I might have overlooked it, and I most certainly dont speak the language, but nowhere on any of the U of T sites could I find a reference to a school of medicine, much less the study they did on Dr Hammer's theories.
Engineering, Law, Business, yes, so it is concievable that I missed the reference to med school.

I don't fully subscribe to all Dr, Hamer's theories either.
I do believe that he has one piece to the puzzle though.

>Do you have any other references to studies, double bind preferably, or is this the only one?

As for most useful hypno-work, there is very little in the literature in the way of studies, and there is no possible way IMO to do double blind studies using hypnosis.

>I think you may have misunderstood my meaning about driving. I agree smoking doesnt cause cancer any more than driving causes death by automobile.

But that's what I was saying.

>There is no DIRECT causal link.

Exactly!

>BUT there is a direct correlation between those who do smoke, use tobacco, and get respritory, and or throat, mouth, and lip cancer, verses the rest of the non smoking population.

Yes And there is something to that.
But the smoking=cancer idea is barking up the wrong tree, just as driving=auto deaths would be.

>BUT to assume that smoking isnt related,

Only *indirectly* IMO
I don't say unrelated, I say not directly causal.

>and that Dr Hammer is right, IS to assume that smokers have a disproportionate percentage, of catastrophic events in their lives, as opposed to the rest of the population.

Yes. The likely reason they started smoking in the first place.

>Because they most certainly DO have a disproportionate rate of lung, throat, mouth and lip cancer.

Agreed

>Further it ASSUMES that snuff dippers, and tobacco chewers, must not only have a disproportionate amount of catastrophic events, BUT they MUST ASLO have ALL had the SAME KIND of catastrophic event.

Accepting Dr. Hamer totally, i'd agree.
But I only use that as a starting point.

>To accept Dr Hammer's theory you must defy both logic and reality.

Depends on if you look at all of the theory alone, or use it as a starting point.

>To me that means the 'other university' mentioned, that refuses to do any study based on his work, inst necessarily persecuting Dr Hammer, they might simply be refusing to waste time and money on something that contradicts the cancer incidence rate evidence.

There is more to the human than statistics.

>Personally I think that's where no reasearch is needed to realize that Hammer's theory falls apart, but I am willing to learn more if there is any.

I think Dr. Hamer's ideas have *some, limited* merit.

>Please dont let the belief filter out the use of the brain, just because you want it to be so. Normally you are smatert than that Merlin, so there must be something else to this.

Much more!
You wanted research. Dr. Hamer is all I can give you. I don't accept his theory 100%
I just find it a good stepping stone.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The real issue, as I see it is a faulty belief system, typically brought about by emotions.
Dr. Hamer's research supports this in that he traces emotional links to many cancers.
Mr. Parkhill's work would seem to agree, in that he has often found a link between a trauma and cancer.

Fast forward now, not to those that die of cancer, but those who don't.
Why don't they? How do people recover, sometimes in a couple of days?
The answer (IMO) is a change in belief/desire to live.
Steve works to reframe events such that the person has a desire to live, or that the belief one should not live is reframed.
He's been very successful. So have the many others who follow his methods.

The human is different from a simple mechanical system due to the mind.
The mind orchestrates healing that would not otherwise occur. The mind is the difference and the source.
That is why I don't accept the model of testing on other animals.
It discounts the mind.
If a cancer is developing, it is because (IMO) the mind is not functioning to prevent it.
This is also why most smokers don't get cancer. Because their mind is at work healing.

I see similarities with Diabetes and many other 'dis-eases'.
A change of mind typically changes the (sugar) response.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

>I'll offer you something that in my opinion, IS more useful, that you and others may find to be of value.

>It is the destruction of the fallacious belief that cancer = death.

I think that depends more on the subconscious' desire to live.

>First of all it is easy to prove. Second it doesnt have to rely on the 'people are broken model'

You come across as having a hangup with that 'people are broken model'

>of some catastrophic event damaging them, or their mother doing something to them in the womb. It deals directly with where the cancer patient is, and their greatest fear.

Whatever works for you :)
I let the client's subconscious decide that.
I may discuss typical findings here, but there is no advantage to preconceived ideas when working with a client.

>How cancer might originate is relevent to prevention of cancer. It is relevent if the "cause" is continuing to manifest the cancer. But the 'people are broken model' hasnt proved that.

You think the cause is in the smoking rather than the mind?
So, should I interpret your belief here as:
You caused the cancer by smoking
rather than you may have developed an erroneous belief which allowed this, based on a misunderstanding by the sub-conscious?

>When dealing with a client who has cancer or any disease, I focus on what they want, their outcome and generally that is to be "well". And Ill go, and take them, wherever their belief system needs to go, to accomplish that.

As I have said 'whatever works'.

>And my experience (70 + with mixed results), thus far indicates there is no one size fits all. To assume so is tantamount to a surgeon who thinks gall bladders are the cause of all ills. "The operation was a sucess, unfortunately the patient died."

>And lest you think I am claiming something, like others seem to be unable to resist, my only current cancer client is a young woman, double mastectomy, just started chemo, and me working with her on the cancer, immune system boost, and esteem issues. When she is declared cancer free, it will have been her doing, not mine, not the doc's, not the chemo, HER DOING!

'HER DOING' is the only possibility IMO
ALL healing is self-healing

>I dont exactly disagree with you about smoking and cancer, I just think there are better hills to choose to die on.

OK, I'd rather continue on that hill another time anyway.

>So far, no more than I know now, I am deeply suspicious about Hammer's theories, because they dont fit the cancer incidence rates, which as far as I can tell arent influenced by belief.

I think they are the result of sub-conscious belief.
So, if you disagree, I guess this is just another place where we will continue to disagree *AGREEABLY* :)

> If Dr Hammer's theories coincided with cancer incident rates, I would give them more credence, since they run counter to what actually occurrs it seems obvious that they may be also counter to the truth.

watever works for you :)

[EC]

Hi Don,

>>I would like to respectfully suggest that humans are far more complex than the monocausation theories imply. If, for example, cigarettes by themselves cause cancer, why does one person who smokes get lung cancer and a friend who also smokes not get cancer? Why does one person in a high-stress situation get cancer while another doesn't? <<

Could it be that it comes down to the strength of the immune system?

And >>In other words, when it comes to the "cause" of cancer, I would contend that all of the monocauses listed so far are correct--but incomplete. <<

I disagree and the only reason that I write this is to "give hope" to those that might read the thread and have a dreaded disease to overcome. The answer to cancer is in this thread as many of us know. I do agree that cancer is not cured by one approach alone. Allopathy doesn't "cure" cancer. Allopathy "treats" cancer. Surgery, Chemo, Radiation. All of these are more dangerous than the cancer and two of them destroy immune function. This is known and tolerated in the hope that the cancer dies before the patient. Naturopathy treats the immune system in the hope of building it to destroy the cancer. Hypnosis attacks it from the emotional/belief system. Any one of these can sometimes overcome the cancer but together they are a powerful trio as considerable research shows and that research can be found at large on the internet.

Nixon (I believe it was) declared war on cancer in the 60's???
To date allopathic medicine has not advanced and still uses surgery, chemo and radiation. "Integrated" medicine however seems to be making advances and clinics are springing up to advance this success.

I do agree that we humans are a "trichotomy" of Physical, Mental and Spiritual. (I refer to it as PMS) Addressing all three is necessary for total well being IMO, based on my own practice.

Annie:

I know you have the best interest of the client in mind, whatever approach you take, as I do and I enjoy learning your thoughts and experience.

And no, I wouldn't deny anyone the right to their belief or any of their rights. I would however suggest that while a cancer victim is undergoing forgiveness therapy and learning to "kick the guilt habit", that a really good "immune support" supplement be suggested, if for no other reason than to "help the belief system believe it is getting better". Hey it's been known to work!

EC

[Merlin]

EC,

My disagreement with you would be that it is 100% mind, not 1/3 mind.

I think the mind plays a much greater part than the Naturopath's potions.
An allopath may set or splint the leg, but then it's up to the mind to bring about the healing.

As for Dr. Hamer, it's just a starting point to show a mind-body connection.

[EC]

Merlin,

I didn't expectyou to do any different, so I was prepared with Annie's line;

"I used to think that to."

Just between you and I, I do believe the real power is "in the mind", and that the mind is largely responsible and can overcome cancer if properly directed. Truth is it has been my experience that few practitioners are qualified to lead/help someone to this point of power, therefore it is not an option for the masses. I do find that many practitioners can learn an integrated approach that accomplishes close to the same result, using a full arsenal to work at the problem from three different angles. You know "divide and conquer". Divert the clients attention from a single focus, help the client feel beter. Paint a picture and the mind will make it a reality.

EC

[Unregistered]

EC:

"Truth is it has been my experience that few practitioners are qualified to lead/help someone to this point of power, therefore it is not an option for the masses."

Are you so qualified and have you done this?

[Annie]

Hi EC,

Thank you for being perceptive enough, and willing to state, honestly : " The answer to cancer is in this thread as many of us know. "

Thank you further for making this statement, equally as correct : " Allopathy doesn't "cure" cancer. Allopathy "treats" cancer.
Surgery, Radiation, Chemo : All of these are >more< dangerous than the cancer and two of them destroy immune function. This is known and tolerated in the hope that the cancer dies before the patient.
declared "war on cancer" in the 60's ???
To date, allopathic medicine has not advanced and still uses surgery, chemo and radiation."

Merlin has just added, and I am in full agreement with her statement as well : " it is 100% mind, not 1/3 mind. I think the mind plays a much greater part than the Naturopath's potions.
An allopath may set or splint the leg, but then it's up to the mind to bring about the healing. "

EC, upon your arrival in this group 6 months ago you made a statement, to the effect of, ' I am interested in helping people connect deeply within themself '. (That isn't a quote, but it suffices ), and
I can think of no finer way to help people achieve just that, than via the " cancer "-help available to such sufferers for the past 20 years.

(I posted, honestly, to Solaris yesterday : " As far as "cancer" ? - in reading the posts here, you observe all different opinions about 'causality' : yet, I wonder how many of said posters are Practitioners actually helping people with such in the past, or currently. Iow, there is a big difference between being an "armchair Theorist", and actually actively Helping people with such "issues".

I have not only *self-Healed* from such (in 1982), I have additionally helped several people 'self-Heal' themselves, as well. And 4 years ago, I availed myself of additional Training, enabling us to help such sufferers more 'systematically' should we be asked. " )

Now, let me ask you this, EC : When will you avail yourself of Training ?, so you - too - can help people as some of us have already done, and will continue ...


Annie

~~~~~
Annie:

I know you have the best interest of the client in mind, whatever approach you take, as I do and I enjoy learning your thoughts and experience.

And no, I wouldn't deny anyone the right to their belief or any of their rights. I would however suggest that while a cancer victim is undergoing Forgiveness therapy and learning to "kick the guilt habit", that a really good "immune support" supplement be suggested, if for no other reason than to "help the belief system believe it is getting better". Hey it's been known to work!

EC

[EC]

Hi Annie,

>>Now, let me ask you this, EC : When will you avail yourself of Training ?, so you - too - can help people as some of us have already done, and will continue

Did you somehow get the idea that the postings I make are based on theory and not actual practice?

I don't agree with offering "theoretical" opinions. What I post/offer is based on 23 years of clinical practice as well as teaching. I visit the forum for a variety
of reasons, one of which is to continue to learn through considering the viewpoints of others as it relates to my own experiences.

EC

[Annie]

Hi EC,

ok; so this means that for the past 23 years, you have already been guiding other peope's *self-Healing* from cancerous conditions ?, as a few of us others have as well ...

(The reason I'm not sure now, is because you have been perpetuating at great length in this thread your offering of "PMS", nutritional supplementation, this vein - you know ...; so - was this just your method of PACE-ing this audience ? I'm asking because I am not sure what your intention with this was ?
and
as far as "arm-chair therorists", that was not in reference to you, but other contributors to this thread who have let it be known in the past, that they have not done this kind of "Cancer-work" because of their limiting beliefs about such. )

Anyway, if you have been helping people *self-Heal* in this way : Hurrah for you, as well as all of the people you have thus helped, and will continue ! :D


Annie

[EC]

Annie,

>>(The reason I'm not sure now, is because you have been perpetuating at great length in this thread your offering of "PMS", nutritional supplementation, this vein - you know ...; so - was this just your method of PACE-ing this audience ? I'm asking because I am not sure what your intention with this was ?

I understand that it is difficult to truly know each other by the postings we make, and sometimes those postings certainly seem contradictory because they are but a small "snip" of the overall experience and knowledge level of the poster.

Yes, I have been helping people with everything from tension headache to end stage cancer for 23 years. In fact, so many that I "dis-remember" how many, and that also includes considerable "Autism" cases, some diagnosed and some not. (but that's another thread isn't it). I think we all have our strengths and weaknesses regardless of the field we are in. My strength is human behavior and determining whether a condition is psychogenic/psychosomatic as opposed to pathological. As we all have certain talents, I seem to be somewhat "intuitive" in this respect and am able to "feel" what others feel at times, which leads to pictures/feelings/answers.

A couple of years ago I was asked to create a model to be used to train counselors, primarily because what is out there is not working for the masses. So, I have created and am finalizing an integrated approach to treatment that addresses the physical, mental and spiritual issues. I certainly wish we had a hypnotist on every corner that was qualified to work with such as cancer but in my experience, that is not the case and such are few and far between, in fact and sadly, most schools that teach hypnosis find a stop biting your fingernails program difficult, "IMO".

None of what I say really means that I believe that cancer is not primarily in the mind. It is to say that for the masses, because of lack of therapist abilities, approaching cancer from only a mental side is not going to work for many people, therefore stating that cancer is 100% mental is useless in the real world IMO. It does make sense to me to approach cancer therapy from several directions, that will have the support of all involved professions and whereby one treatment will help make up for weakness in another. If we as professionals continue to stand on our belief system, line up against each other (so to speak), people will just keep on dying. We will just continue to get what we have got as Merlin says.

Once again, sometimes allopathy works, sometimes naturopathy works and sometimes hypnosis works, but it comes down to the quality of the therapy. I believe that since we cannot always have the best of the best in any given field, it makes a great deal of sense to work together for the common good of the sick.

Hope this clears my postings up a bit!

EC

[Don]

Merlin, if it's 100% mind, why is it that animals put in situations where they have to smoke, develop cancer and heart disease at a higher rate than those who do not? And why is it that nicotine will cause cancer in cells that are not part of a living person?

[Merlin]

I guess we'll just have to disagree then Don.
I am of the position that humans are not animals, just made similarly.

[Merlin]

Hi EC,

I would suggest to you that the strength of the immune system is dependant on sub-conscious decision more than anything else.

[Merlin]

>most schools that teach hypnosis find a stop biting your fingernails program difficult, "IMO".

<LOL> how true!

[Merlin]

>Truth is it has been my experience that few practitioners are qualified to lead/help someone to this point of power

I agree EC, but if someone doesn't stand up and say something, there never will be change.
I take the opportuynity here to post of the possibilities, not that most hypnotists can't hypnotise.

If we all remain silent, who will ever hear of the possibilities?

[Merlin]

Don, As I have said, it is my position that people are not animals.

Just as a match can ignite gasoline, but not water. They are both similar, in that they are both liquids, but they are also very different in many ways.

[EC]

Hi Merlin,

Last few post :

Yes I do agree
Yes how true !
Yes I do agree with that thinking also

EC

[Don]

So those cultured human cells that get cancer from nicotine have bad attitudes. Okay...
:-)

[EC]

>>So those cultured human cells that get cancer from nicotine have bad attitudes. Okay...<<

Add an immune (defense) system and a mind to direct the defense system and it takes a lot longer, sometimes never.

EC

[Don]

I would agree. That's why I think there is a symbiosis of factors, and not a single one.

[shekes]

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/1604/1/Diss_8_2_7_OCR.pdf (https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/1604/1/Diss_8_2_7_OCR.pdf)