Hypnosis and hypnotherapy

[The Mighty Thor]

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

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

 

[The Don]

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

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

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

 

[Darat]

Well the study of it can definitely be scientific. 

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

For instance see this site:

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

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

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

About Hypnotherapy

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

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

...snip...

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

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

...

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

...

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

...

 

[H'ethetheth]

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

 

[Jeff Corey]

Well the study of it can definitely be scientific. 

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

For instance see this site:

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

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



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

These claims are not supported by the data. See Robert Baker's "Some Call It Hypnosis".
Also, anyone can call themself a "Hypnotherapist" without any training whatsoever, unlike other titles that require state licensing.
By the way, the same is true of "Psychotherapist".

 

[tonyb]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Darat]

Highlight by me:

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

Hypnosis is generally very safe

Generally? And how do you know?

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

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

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

Any evidence for this?

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

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

Any evidence?

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

Can you point me to where I can validate this?

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

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

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

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

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

Again any evidence?

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

 

[Rolfe]

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

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

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

Whatever, it certainly seemed to work for me.

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

Rolfe.

 

[HypnoPsi]

If something is safe then it can't be effective and vice versa. So if it has an effect it cannot be 100% safe.

I, hypnopsi, who started this whole storm in a tea-cup, have to be honest here in saying that 'The Don' makes a very interesting point.

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

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

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[HypnoPsi]

Well the study of it can definitely be scientific. 

For me what is of concern is the extravagant claims made by some practitioners and the fact that there is not (apparently) an understanding behind the practise of what it is they do to a “patient”. For instance see this site: http://www.thehypnotherapyassociation.co.uk/ Seems a "professional site"

For what it's worth, I live in the UK and seriously doubt the hypnotherapy association's claim to be "the largest independent professional body in Britain representing hypnotherapists in active practice."

Either way, this is just ultimately another 'trade association' like all the rest because there is no government recognised body for hypnothearpy in the UK currently.

And what do the members (practitioners) of this association say hey can do and what can they treat?

There are two rules here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Hi Tony,

One thing I don't believe in is 'automatism' - which is usually what all the fuss is about. As for false memories, well I believe in the socio-cognitive model of hypnosis so false memories are, to me, the byproduct of therapist and patient belief and reinforcement. I don't see how hypnosis as a thing in and of itself can cause it. Age regression? That, again, is just as risky as free association, as far as I see it. I really believe this only occurs when the therapist and patient play some kind of concentual game to bring it about.

Here in the UK the profession is self-regulated, so we do get our share of incompetents. Usually, these don't survive in practice very long.

True.

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

Er... no, Tony, I genuinely wish I could agree with you here but that's not true. You and I might have done things that way, but insurance realy is not that hard to get independently and there are many therapists out there who have done nothing more than some correspondence course or other and yet who still practice with insurance as members of some of the associations you might have in mind.

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

The truly double edged sword is stage hypnosis. Every time McKenna does his stuff on the telly I manage to get more interest in my work from some and more suspicion from others - because both groups believe in automatism! (Either way, I don't believe that anyone on stage is really convinced they're a chicken.)

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[HypnoPsi]

Generally? And how do you know [it's safe]?

Relaxation tapes have been 'in the wild' for decades now without any ill effects... just don't drive while you're listening to one!

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

In the UK there is a weird mix at the moment. Some schools are accredited by the British Accrediation Council (but you have to wait 3 years before you can apply for that). Then there are all the various trade associations - some with better recognition by the currently government recognised health professions than others.

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

(Sorry, got a bit carried away there.)

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

You asked about evidence for the effectiveness of regression. I'll give you the answer I always give: talk to a counsellor (if you want!) about a negative experience from your childhood or adolescence and see how you feel during, immediately after and later. My guess is you'll be happy to have got something off your chest but feel the process was a little stressfull. Now go to a hypno and repeat the experiment in a relaxed state seeing the whole thing on a cinema screen. Again, my guess is that you'll still feel better about having gotten something off your chest but not as stressed about it. Really, it's the talking to someone else that seems to matter. How you do it is up to you.

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

Again there is a standard answer here. Psychologically, you should compare it to advertising. Can you see yourself as the cool guy who drinks pepsi? Can you see yourself as the 'independent' guy who owns a macintosh instead of a PC? More relevantly, can you see yourself as a non-smoker or as someone who no longer bites their nails? (It's all very simple isn't it? Of course, hypnos should know some decent ways of helping you persuade yourself to stop smoking, etc.,.) Physiologically, the 'theoretical underpinnings' surround what occurs in the body during stress and relaxation - with hypnos emphasising relaxation! As to the fancy stuff, it's all related to blood flow or the nervous system or the endocrine system or the immune system or all of the above... It's not, I admit, currently understood very well, but it definately doesn't break any rules of anatomy or physiology.

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

http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/se...rief=25&resourcetype=1&andorexactfulltext=and

http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/se...rief=25&resourcetype=1&andorexactfulltext=and

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Yes, I can relate to that.

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

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

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

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[tonyb]

Hi Darat & HypnoPsi,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


Posted by Rolfe

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

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

 

[epepke]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Yes - and no! When we do an induction we'll typically include PPR (progressive physical relaxation) and SPV (safe place visualisation). Why? Literally, the answer is because it makes the client happy and less stressed - and that means real chemical changes in the brain and physiology and a little or a lot more confidence to takle the presenting issue. As for the cognitive interventions - switches or whatever - they can be done outside of hypnosis, but a relaxed patient just tends to be more confident and happy.

So, the hypno runs an anchor asking your to see yourself on a cinema screen being stressed out and correspondingly to imagine a lever going up. Then they ask you to imagine yourself at a happy time and to correspondingly imagine the same imaginary lever going down. Now the crux of the issue is that this will probably work well the first time you do it but it has to be reinforced for the client to develop control of their own mind. We don't produce change in the mind or the body - we just fascilitate a psychophysiological state in which the client can fascilitate change themselves.

So, what gets called "woo" and what is not "woo"? Maybe the familiar metaphors are non-woo and the unfamiliar metaphors are woo.

That's definately part of it, yes, since hypnos won't hesitate to use some truly ridiculous seeming metaphors with patients should they be based on something the patient has perhaps said in session.

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

Remember: the body is systemic. The way to think about hypnosis is to ask what effects relaxation and a PMA (positive mental attitude) have on our psychophysiology, and to then work backwards from the etiology of any given presenting issue and then, finally, to guage what palliative, remedial or curitive effects hypnotherapy will likely have in terms of promoting homeostasis against degeneration, damage or disease.

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

But it's in our nature to look for patterns People will see faces in clouds or on the surface of Mars for the same reason. It's not due to fantasy proneness as much as it's due to the way we evolved. The brain stores information as schemas. Asking people not to think this way is, frankly, impossible in the long-run. It's a handicap we have to deal with - and we're all guilty of it.

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

Everyone is guilty of it - even skeptics. It's the way our minds work - we learn by rote, association and connection - and if no objective connection is apparent the mind will subjectively provide one itself.

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[HypnoPsi]

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

Hello Marian,

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

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

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

Another thing you should consider is what interventions have been used to uncover these memories and who has been doing the uncovering. You may or may not be surprised to learn that this has usually occurred with such things as free association and psychoanalytic type therapies more than hypnotherapy - though people like to scapegoat hypnosis. Furthermore, you'll also find that it most regularly occurs with social workers, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists than lay practitioners. I'll offer that's because lay practitioners are more timid about what they'll deal with and because patients will be more willing to open up to a 'real doctor' than a 'complementary therapist'. The scapegoating of 'unregulated therapists' isn't supported by the facts. Furthermore, out of the millions of therapy sessions that are held every day throughout the world it is only the smallest fraction that produce 'false memory syndrome'. People should learn to put this in context.

The only evidence was information given by people, generally solicited in therapy, under hypnosis with regression.

I'd ask for evidence here that hypnotherapy was the first choice of treatement (rather tahn hypnosis only being employed to find out more details of something alread hinted at and latently agreed to by therapist and patient) and that the therapists in question were 'lay practitioners'. I'm not saying that's impossible, but I really do think you'll find that lay practitioners are implicated considerably less in these instances than people might imagine.

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

You'd have to see it done to realise just how mundane it is to me and other therapists and just how removed your experiences are to our work. And, by the way, hypnosis is no more likely to alter memory than anything - it is leading questions that do that.

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

Hypnosis simply assists the body in it's own healing process by reducing stress, etc.,. As I said in another post, hair and nail strength, the mending of broken bones and the treatment of burns might not appear to you to be connected in any way but they are all related to HgH (human growth hormone). Hypnotherapy, even by helping you to get a decent nights sleep, be less stressed and more happy and to achieve a more regular sleep pattern will assist your body to do what it already does itself. As for incurable diseases, hypnotherapy boosts the immune system (again, by reducing stress and increasing 'positivity'. Don't be too surprised to find remission rates slightly higher in hypnosis groups than control groups - just don't expect it to happen in every instance either. (And, by the way, you'll also probably find that the best results here occur between the age groups of early teens to early twenties when the immune system is already quite strong and HgH production is at it's peak.

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

(As for penis length... girth maybe, but length I'd doubt.)

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

To place this in clinical terms, what you're actually asking is what benefits there are to abreaction (which basically means recalling an experience and having a good cry). This might provide you with more information:

http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/se...rief=25&resourcetype=1&andorexactfulltext=and

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

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

 

[tonyb]

Hi Marian,

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

AND

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


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

Example:

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

 

[The Mighty Thor]

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

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

All the best,
Fortean Stephen

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

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

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