Do sceptics have a one-eyed view? Recently an opinion stated’ “Forget trying to convince a sceptic, that sceptics would never be convinced. Do sceptics’ become sceptics just for the hell of it? On the other hand, do sceptics’ feel that they have just cause, even if it were misguided? In addition, is it misguided? Indeed, the person make such an opinion, are they not also guilty of being a sceptic about their own beliefs?
The origin of the word sceptic comes from the late 16th century from French sceptique, or via Latin from Greek skeptikos, from skepsis ‘inquiry, doubt’. It goes back to the earliest philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group said to consist of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintain that real knowledge of things is impossible. The name also given to any later thinker, who doubts or questions the possibility or real knowledge of any kind.
I would suggest that for both sides, i.e. the original outcome view, as well as the later thinker who doubts that original view, both have their own good reasons as to why they hold their stance – don’t you? It (the view) comes from our evaluation and hence forms our belief system. Moreover, where does our belief system come from – truth? Not necessarily, it comes from what we believe to be true from the source we believe is accurate.
Indoctrinating is an accepted belief through something or someone, and questioning the outcome if your evaluation differs, I would think is actually a good thing. Well I would think so, but often that is not the case.
Someone calling another a sceptic is often done to belittle or criticise the other person. It is saying that the other persons view is wrong. After all, it has already been an accepted opinion. That must make it right. No, that is not necessarily correct.
If you are a doctor or professor, you might argue that I do not have your qualifications, and you would be right – but I have 23 years practice in dealing with addictions, insomnia, weight issues, fingernail biting, hair pulling, erectile dysfunction, fingernail biting, hair pulling, phobia, anxiety and depression, etc. I would imagine that knowledge and observing should count for something. Unfortunately that is not necessarily accepted either. The more certificates you have on the wall, the more likely you are going to be seen and accepted as an expert. Even if on a practical level you have done very little. However, of course, those certificates have to be through doing a course – you have guessed it, by an accepted Academic University institution. Moreover, who decides what you should know? The Academic institutions run by Academics of course.
However, let me be a sceptic here on the health system we have right now. These articles below and others like it, don’t support the accepted opinion that scientifically researched medicine is safe –
The pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has agreed to plead guilty and pay $3 billion in civil and criminal penalties over its marketing of Paxil and Wellbutrin, and for failing to report safety problems with Avandia. GSK acknowledged that its labeling for Paxil was false and that it published data stating its efficacy in treating adolescents when data showed the opposite was true. GSK promoted Wellbutrin for several conditions including weight loss and ADHD, although it had only been approved for depression. GSK kept secret data on Avandia when it was found to cause cardiovascular events, and will pay more than $1 billion for alleged False Claims Act violations related to payment of kickbacks for those and other drugs. 1
Publication bias concerns grow. Concerns that published research does not provide doctors with the full evidence base about medications is increasing, with an analysis of antipsychotic trials finding several examples of publication bias. 24 trials were analysed registered with the US Food and Drug Administration of eight second-generation antipsychotics. The study found that four of the trials were never published. Of these, three failed to show that the study drug was significantly better than placebo, and one showed the drug was statistically inferior to the active comparator.2
Nearly three-quarters of the retracted drug studies were attributed to scientific misconduct, which includes data falsification or fabrication, questionable veracity, unethical author conduct, or plagiarism.3
Pharma disclosure – Critics say the financial relationship between pharmaceutical companies and doctors is toxic. One study from Sydney University found that 94 per cent of doctors received gifts and 52 per cent accepted some travel sponsorship from the industry.4
A Call for Caution on Antipsychotic Drugs – The number of annual prescriptionsfor atypical antipsychotics rose to 54 million in 2011 from 28 million in 2001, a 93 percent increase, according to IMS Health.5
Primum non nocere: an evolutionary analysis of whether antidepressants do more harm than good. Antidepressant medications are the first-line treatment for people meeting current diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder. Most antidepressants are designed to perturb the mechanisms that regulate the neurotransmitter serotonin – Many adaptive processes evolved to be regulated by serotonin, including emotion, development, neuronal growth and death, platelet activation and the clotting process, attention, electrolyte balance, and reproduction. It is a principle of evolutionary medicine that the disruption of evolved adaptations will degrade biological functioning. Because serotonin regulates many adaptive processes, antidepressants could have many adverse health effects.6
Little evidence supports medical treatment options for autism – Despite studies that show that many adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorders are being prescribed medications, there is almost no evidence to show whether these medications are helpful in this population, the researchers said.7
Here is an article on a review on fish oil – Sep. 11, 2012
Omega-3 fatty acids, found in oily fish such as sardines and salmon and once touted as a way of staving off heart disease and stroke, don’t help after all, according to a Greek study. Based on a review and analysis of previous clinical trials including more than 68,000 participants, Greek researchers whose report appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association said the fatty acids have no impact on overall death rates, deaths from heart disease, or strokes and heart attacks.8
And here is an article on a review on fish oil just 2 weeks later – Sep. 24, 2012
Fish is healthful food, and several studies have shown that people who eat fish have a lower risk of cardiovascular diseases than those who eat very little or no fish. At the same time, some fish contain environmental pollutants that can be hazardous to our health. One such pollutant that is suspected of increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease is methyl mercury, which is found in varying degree in different kinds of fish. If people eat fish with much pollutants, this would lead to increased risk of disease, but at the same time if people are overly cautious and eat too little fish, the risk of disease also increases.9
A study into the cost effectiveness of complementary medicine in Australia has found the nation could potentially save millions in healthcare costs without compromising patient outcomes if complementary medicine is more widely used. The research conducted by Access Economics for the National Institute of Complementary Medicine (NICM) at the University of Western Sydney examined the cost effectiveness of selected complementary medicine (CM) treatments for some of Australia’s most common and costly chronic health problems including: low back pain, heart disease, depression and arthritis.10
I am in the healing profession. I want to do the best I can for my clients. In addition, I am sure that most doctors do as well.
I never advise clients that they shouldn’t have medication, and I caution them not to come off their medication, warning them that they could have an abreaction if it is not done properly. If they feel better after our working together, I advise them that they should go back to their doctor and ask for their help to come off their medication.
And unfortunately there are times when people just cannot manage to live without being on medication, however, there is the other side of the coin, where if at all possible we should look for other ways, because chemicals can and do cause an imbalance, sometimes worse then what they are meant to cure. And as we can see by the reports above, data can be manipulated to give us a false feeling of security.
As a hypnoanalytical client centered clinical hypnotherapist dealing with many issues using the power of the subconscious mind to heal such things as addictions, anxiety, fears, phobia and depression, it is something I would recommend to anyone as a first option for clients to consider. It is drug-free and uses your own inner power to create change.
As with anything you try, do your due diligence to check out how much training and how much practice your proposed practitioner has in hypnotherapy and in the area you want help with – are they set up as a hypnotherapist or some other modality where they use hypnosis as an adjunct to other training? It can make a difference as to how proficient they are in the art and science of hypnotherapy.