Posts by bluemason3

crimsongull20 said:I hear Dr. Ivan has a great reputation over in Seattle, though I haven't seen him myself. Just a heads-up that this isn't firsthand experience.

thanks 🙂

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good gastroenterologist out in California or the Pacific Northwest? I’m having a hard time finding much online; I didn't turn up anything useful in San Francisco, just a few options near Seattle... Honestly, without any specific leads, I’d probably just head over to Medica in Seattle. It’s not even about the doctors specifically—since I don't know them—it's more that my mom was happy with their service back in the day. 🤷

I just stumbled upon this while Googling. It isn't the exact study I had in mind, but the subject matter seems identical...

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/72/6/730-b

It doesn't offer much in the way of actual help beyond confirming the topic exists; they're asking for a subscription to Anesthesiology.

stormymaker24 said:If someone’s eyes are squeezed shut, how on earth are they supposed to see the colors in the room? Maybe they've got a third eye tucked away somewhere.

That was just a silly example I threw out there. Let's stick to the actual discussions in the OR. Like I said, I don't recall the specific details of those conversations, but I was just pointing out what would logically be possible. In this particular case involving the colors, it just doesn't make sense. 😁

It’s pretty obvious she was just talking out of her neck.

Like I said before, I recall reading about a study like that. I don’t know the specifics, and I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert here—just passing along the info. 😉

stormymaker24 said:I’m about to dive headfirst into this. 🤦‍♂️

Don't bother. It isn't worth chasing after someone just because you're chasing a delusion. 😛 😬

No, you can't just hypnotize anyone.

You can hypnotize pretty much any normal person. At its core, hypnosis is just manipulation through standard psychological mechanisms. We enter a "trance" all the time—when we're daydreaming, zoning out in front of the TV, driving down a highway, or during a massage. Only someone with a cold, robotic, purely analytical mind—someone who isn't really human in the traditional sense—would be incapable of hypnosis. It’s also a misconception that hypnosis requires a relaxing trance. Under US legal definitions, for example, hypnosis is simply bypassing the mind's critical factor. You don't need your eyes closed or to be physically relaxed; those are outdated concepts, just one possible way to do it. But let's set that aside and stick to the classic idea of a trance. Even then, almost anyone can be hypnotized. The only exception is someone who consciously or unconsciously resists, usually out of fear. That's really it. Virtually everyone—or nearly everyone else—can be hypnotized, provided you strip away the fears and the nonsense ideas people pick up from movies, stage performers, and a whole heap of other unprofessional sources.
The idea that a client can't be hypnotized is usually just an excuse. It’s a convenient way to dodge the fact that the hypnotist simply couldn't make it happen. Honestly, it's a standard defense mechanism. Unless someone is dealing with a truly severe neurological disorder, hypnosis works. 🙂

You can only hypnotize people who are naturally more suggestible and prone to it.

Like I said, I was completely off base. 🙂

There’s also the question of just how deep you can actually take someone under.

It’s possible, though you could pretty much induce sleepwalking in almost anyone, whether it happens during the first session or the third.

Fewer people actually reach that hypnotic coma or Esdale state. Usually, they have to work a lot harder with hypnosis to get there. As for reaching the Sichort level? Even fewer manage that, though honestly, the whole concept is questionable. It’s not even certain if we can define it as its own distinct state yet—it's still pretty new territory.

You can always put someone to sleep.

If you induced anesthesia, then we aren't talking about hypnosis. That has absolutely nothing to do with sleep.

You can actually talk to someone. Someone will end up recounting their dreams to you.

With hypnosis, you can talk to anyone right up until they hit a somnambulistic state. Once you go below that level—into territory like Esdale or Sichort—things get tricky. At that point, people start pushing back. They might still hear what the therapist is saying, but they just stop caring. As for Sichort, honestly, there isn't much data on it yet.

It’s also worth noting that people who are most susceptible to hypnosis tend to have lower levels of education and fall slightly below average when it comes to intellectual capacity.

Nonsense.
There’s some talk out there suggesting it might be easier to hypnotize someone of the opposite sex, or that people from laid-back, tropical climates make better subjects than those from colder regions. But honestly, I think education and profession play a much bigger role in how you approach a session. Take a guy who is completely burnt out from a high-stress corporate job in New York City. He isn't going to respond well to standard relaxation inductions; he’ll either pass out immediately or get too agitated to actually settle down. Then you have the highly analytical, skeptical types—people who overthink every single suggestion. Their constant need to dissect everything makes it nearly impossible for them to just let go. In those cases, if we're talking about direct hypnosis rather than the more subtle Ericksonian style, you're better off using rapid confusion techniques instead of trying to force relaxation. 🙂 To someone with less education, hypnosis might seem like some mystical old wives' tale. But if you're dealing with someone more educated and skeptical, you’re going to have to work harder to explain the actual mechanics of it. The truth is, anyone can be hypnotized. I once had this experience with a university professor who was incredibly dismissive of the whole thing—thought it was just silly nonsense. If I had tried to force him into it right out of the gate, it wouldn't have gone anywhere. But we talked. We went through the explanations and cleared the air. After a little while, it worked perfectly. It wasn't that he was "unhypnotizable"; it was just a case of a mediocre hypnotist failing to build rapport.

There’s a huge chunk of the population you simply can’t hypnotize. If you try, they’ll just stare at you like you’re some kind of total weirdo. Not directed at you specifically, just a general observation.

I’ll say it again: you can hypnotize anyone if they actually want to be hypnotized. If someone develops the motivation—say, due to a psychological issue where their therapist suggests it—and their fears are cleared up, they’ll likely go under. Most people's resistance just comes from a lack of understanding or all those myths they see on TV. It isn't that they aren't "suggestible"; it's that they don't want to be. That's assuming we're talking about direct hypnosis. If you're an expert using more subtle, indirect methods, you could probably slip someone into a trance regardless of their attitude. Just ask Sacreus. He’s studying psychology and going through psychotherapy training, which involves a lot of work with indirect techniques. He’s successfully hypnotized plenty of people who swore they were impossible to hypnotize—people who insisted it wouldn't work on them—only to find themselves staring at a watch with a total gap in their memory. 😁
I was just saying how much hypnosis has evolved since the days of staring at a pocket watch or lounging on a couch. It’s honestly baffling that you still see such outdated information being peddled in the public eye—and frankly, even among professionals.

Specific surgical details that nobody could have known? Like what? These days, you can find a granular description of almost any procedure online. Sure, there are individual differences, but if hypnosis was involved, some time has definitely passed between the surgery and those "memories." There’s an enormous amount of information a person can stumble upon in the interim... and if they went looking for the surgeon to validate their story... well, I had to struggle to remember what I’d actually done a full week after my own surgery. People forget things, and they fill in the blanks with whatever helps them make sense of it.

Honestly, anything is possible. I haven't participated in these studies myself, nor do I know where to track them down to be certain of anything beyond a few general conclusions drawn by 🙂 If we're talking about a complex procedure—especially one where complications arose and things weren't routine—if someone describes details unique to a specific OR, like the exact layout, colors, the specific people present, or more importantly, what was being said, then it’s harder to dismiss it as mere coincidence. I heard a case once during a lecture by a well-known hypnotherapist—a patient was dealing with postoperative depression and phantom pains without a physical cause. They "uncovered" that the surgeon had made an inappropriate comment, making her believe she was "beyond saving." If it’s later confirmed that the surgeon actually said that during the operation, that’s a very specific detail. Again, anything goes. I don't recall many specific studies, and the mind is tricky enough to manufacture all sorts of things. It doesn't mean it's true, but I've read about such research and I'm just sharing what I remember. Take it or leave it 🙂

I think drugs mess with you enough—and I'm speaking from personal experience now—that staying conscious isn't really the issue. I can't even recall half the stuff I did when I was drunk, let alone anything under anesthesia, assuming there wasn't some level of "wakefulness" or insufficient medication.

We simply can't consciously recall everything, because things can be unearthed through both hypnotic and non-hypnotic methods (though "hypnotic" is a pretty relative term, and I don't want to overcomplicate things 😬 ). I don't think the existence of memories that aren't easily accessible to the conscious mind should be a point of contention 🙂

stormymaker24 said:Hypnosis alone isn't enough to prove anything. It’s already been established that in countless instances where people recall things—even in vivid detail accompanied by intense emotion—it’s actually just hypnotic suggestion. There are some pretty famous cases where adult daughters accused their fathers of sexual abuse following hypnosis; even though they were absolutely convinced it happened, investigations proved the opposite. Yet, they remain certain about what they "remember."
I won't even get started on how people susceptible to hypnosis are essentially just highly suggestible. If any question asked of them was even slightly steered toward recalling surgical details, the case is closed.

As for those experiments involving positive suggestions during surgery, you'll have to track down that specific study. It’s entirely possible that the researchers simply treated that group of patients a little better both before and after the procedure. That would ruin the whole experiment.

What you wrote is possible, but let's take it with a grain of salt.

Of course, regression itself is never proof. I’m aware of those cases. My first point is that regression can't be used to verify things like past lives, and you can't rely on it to confirm factual events with certainty. Even if an experienced therapist knows how to avoid nudging a client through indirect suggestions, there are still no guarantees. No argument there. However, the fact that a patient can describe specific surgical details that neither they nor the therapist could possibly know is much more interesting.

By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "people who are susceptible to hypnosis." Everyone is, unless there's significant brain damage. Hypnosis isn't just that old-school "Freudian 30%" versus a few percent of "somnambulists" anymore. Our understanding and approach have progressed since then, even if there are still plenty of therapists—and even researchers—who only have a surface-level grasp from a weekend seminar and end up with those same old results. 😁

It's unlikely I'll find that paper right now; I have no idea where I read it. 🤔

Larry Foster said:I wasn't suggesting anything extreme. I just meant dropping some weight over a few months and then focusing on building muscle later.

Well, "a few months" is pretty vague. If you're talking about losing 20 pounds, I'd say we're looking at at least half a year, maybe longer if you want to do it right.🤔

Carol Price79 said:Unfortunately, it was my mother. She survived a C-section with me 34 years ago. The doctors didn't believe her at first, but once she recounted snippets of conversations from the OR—things like what the surgeon said to a nurse—they finally had to take her seriously. She felt the pain whenever she regained consciousness, and given how intense those pains are, the doctors actually called her a medical phenomenon. Looking at the advanced monitoring equipment you're hooked up to today, it seems a bit strange to me that her heart rate would have stayed within normal limits.

I don't have time to quote everyone, so sorry if I'm repeating myself...

There’s a fascinating phenomenon discovered through hypnotic regression: most people can actually recall quite precise details of what happens while they are under anesthesia, even though they aren't consciously aware of it.

It suggests that even under anesthesia, some part of the mind is recording everything. That might even explain those "out-of-body" experiences where people describe surgical procedures with startling accuracy...

What’s even more interesting is how suggestible people seem to be during that state. These insights into regression actually surfaced while studying postoperative depression. It turns out a lot of the time, the cause was just a careless comment or a joke made by a doctor during surgery. They might think the patient is "unconscious" or can't hear them, but the patient subconsciously absorbs that suggestion, and later behaves accordingly. Apparently, there were experiments where one group received standard care while others were given positive suggestions during surgery; there was supposedly a significant difference in recovery speed and success based on the attitude and words used by the surgeon and staff. I’m not sure who was specifically tasked with talking to the patient under anesthesia—probably the anesthesiologist?

Anyway, whether we realize it or not, it seems something is always being recorded, even under sedation.

People usually say you should steer clear of dropping more than just a few pounds a month 🤷

When people breathe, I hate everyone who breathes :2up:

It’s not a belt for the kids, it’s one for the wife. ☕

Keith Jones76 said:Everything you need to know about that is covered in this thread:

Hmm, listen... look at something like Dipyrone. I hear—though I haven't checked—that it's banned in many countries due to too many side effects, yet it's still sold here in the States. Or take a friend who gets prescribed some psychiatric med (can't recall the name)... they go to do a little research and find a mountain of side effects paired with the fact that the drug is relatively new (meaning there's a higher chance we don't know all the complications yet). I believe medications are often swapped during therapy because people don't react to everything the same way. In cases I'm aware of, it isn't just about someone being reckless with drugs. I'm not exactly a fan of chemicals, but sometimes it feels unavoidable. Honestly, I'm not sure I see a massive difference between legal and illegal substances in certain instances (aside from better packaging 😁). 🤷 Again, I'm not claiming to know for sure, but I suspect there hasn't been enough research on things that get a bad reputation socially. It probably comes down to what's profitable for Big Pharma. 🤷

Back when Cannabis was approved for medicinal purposes in 1996, the focus was primarily on terminal cancer and AIDS patients. These days, the scope has widened significantly. It’s being utilized much earlier in the progression of various illnesses and for a broader spectrum of conditions, such as Parkinson's, Tourette syndrome, Multiple Sclerosis, chronic pain, and PTSD. Even the mainstream medical community is starting to give more credit to how well Cannabis actually works.

Over at the Mayo Clinic's Bone Marrow Transplantation Department, they're even treating patients—including kids and infants—with drops of oil derived from Cannabis. "It doesn't cause side effects and is largely effective in treating patients," noted the department chief, Professor Reuven. "I'd say it works for about 80 percent of patients, which is quite significant."

Professor Reuven went on to explain, "It helps stimulate appetite and cuts down on nausea and vomiting, which is huge in oncology. It also offers anti-inflammatory benefits, helping with infections or inflammation triggered by radiation. Along with this, Cannabis eases the coping process for patients - it improves their morale and lowers depression, both of which are vital factors for anyone fighting a serious illness."

Currently, about half of the patients receiving Cannabis treatment are in oncology, while roughly a quarter are dealing with chronic pain.

Keith Jones76 said:Look, when we're talking about medical marijuana, it’s mostly used for palliative care—specifically for patients facing terminal diagnoses. In those cases, the long-term risks like potential addiction or cognitive issues down the line don't really matter much, since they aren't expected to be around that long anyway. I'm oversimplifying here, but that's the gist of it.

I'm not entirely sure about that. If I recall correctly from the article about that situation in Israel, they were dealing with much less severe conditions; I think asthma was one of them.🤔 I'll dig around and see what I can find.

Then again, how many "FDA-approved" drugs don't have nasty side effects? Even with standard over-the-counter stuff like painkillers or blood pressure meds, I've heard plenty of firsthand horror stories... 😳

It feels like there’s a lot of avoidance happening here, mostly driven by social stigma. It’s entirely possible that cannabis could prove more effective and have fewer side effects for certain issues than many of the "mainstream" psychiatric drugs out there. I have a friend who has cycled through quite a few prescriptions, and honestly, some of those meds seem more dangerous to me than various recreational substances. Even Israel serves as an interesting case study, where they officially cultivate high-quality cannabis that can be prescribed as medication for specific conditions. I’m not saying it’s inherently better—I don't really care enough to make that claim—but I do wonder how much the stigma surrounding recreational use prevents us from bringing these things into a legitimate therapeutic framework, even when there's a valid medical reason to do so.

crimsonhound80 said:Of course it's not in their interest—producing iboga is probably a hundred times more expensive than mass-producing methadone, and apparently, the results are basically the same.

Wait, which scientific journal did you read that in? Where exactly does it say that iboga is "more effective" than methadone when it comes to keeping people off harder drugs?

None. Do you think research studies just happen by accident?

I haven't heard anyone say it's used for "maintenance." I have heard about people getting off drugs after taking iboga, and I know it can't be addictive because the effects wear off and don't hit the same way twice (if I'm remembering correctly—and honestly, it isn't exactly a pleasant experience, so nobody is using it "recreationally" or on a regular basis). It doesn't seem like it could "maintain" someone the way methadone does. To me, they don't look even remotely similar.

So, what’s the actual process for testing any kind of psychiatric medication?

I mean... it might not be in Big Pharma's best interest, but if there's even a shred of truth to using ibogaine for addiction, I find it wild that we aren't seeing more research on it. Instead, we just keep pushing half-baked solutions like methadone. 🤔

Sure, it's all just talk right now, but that's exactly why we need to be doing the research. 🤷

I recall two similar studies, though my knowledge comes more from personal experience than formal research. One involved a guy who founded an institute for this kind of work; he practiced hypnosis himself before shifting his focus toward other states of consciousness, eventually concluding they weren't quite the same thing. Then there’s that comparison between hypnosis and the specific state a famous writer used to enter during creative bursts—something Erikson studied. Even they concluded that while there are similarities, they aren't identical. This is why I can't stand it when people (looking at you, Bandler) try to lump everything together under the umbrella of hypnosis.

Personally, I think if we wanted to actually study therapeutic benefits, experimenting with Ayahuasca or Iboga would be far more productive than using LSD, at least based on what users report.🤔

Andrew Gomez95 said:I wanted to jump into this thread and share my own situation—maybe someone here has dealt with the same insurance company and can give me some insight:
Basically, one of their policyholders rear-ended me about four months ago, and the damages were assessed at $3333.
I actually received a notice at my house stating that the settlement would be paid out no later than 01.06.2009. Well, today is 15.06 and I haven't heard a peep from them, let alone seen any money. (Side note: apparently, I can't just have the funds sent to my usual checking account; the guy handling our settlement told me State Farm only does things by opening a specific account at a credit union to process the payout, which isn't really the main issue here, but still...)
Look, I’ve learned that when you're dealing with big insurance giants, there's this incredibly common—and frankly, rude—pattern where they drag their feet on payouts. It’s funny how it works—when they need you to pay a premium, suddenly everything happens in one day, but when they owe you? Suddenly, time doesn't exist. I guess that's just how things run in this country.
So, I'm wondering, has anyone else run into this kind of headache?

Well, I’d look at this from a slightly different angle. It's true that claims can drag on, but it really depends on the company and the specific situation (sometimes there are surges in claims that stretch resources thin, but hey, that’s not my department, so I'm just talking out of turn). 😁 That said, I often see clients complaining without much ground to stand on because they expect more than what the policy or the law actually allows. Or they simply don't provide the necessary paperwork—even after multiple calls and formal letters—and then act surprised when the check doesn't arrive. In certain areas, police reports might also get delayed during peak seasons because local authorities prioritize tourists who are about to head home, which makes sense. But the insurance company can't move forward until they have that report or a court ruling. Of course, there are cases where the company is clearly at fault, but in my experience over the last few years (I won't name names to avoid looking like an advertisement), client complaints have been relatively low. Personally, I'd say those complaints are about 50/50 between company error and client wishful thinking.

You also have to consider the value of a good agent. It’s usually worth paying a little extra if you know your agent is reliable, professional, and someone who will actually look out for you when a claim hits, rather than just showing up to take your money. Plus, top-tier agents and agencies carry weight within their firms because of the business they bring in; they can actually advocate for you if a problem arises (which happens all the time due to simple misunderstandings, not necessarily bad intentions). Sometimes, that person is more important than the corporation itself.

Personally, I’d probably steer clear of Aetna. I remember Allstate used to have some quirks too, but things seem better now. I can't think of any major red flags with others off the top of my head. For everything else, I’d focus more on finding a solid agent than obsessing over the company name, unless the actual products are vastly different. With liability coverage, you aren't even dealing with your own provider—you're dealing with the other person's company—so it matters less, though a good agent can still give you advice or pull strings through their connections elsewhere.