Re: Død af healing

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:35:29 +0200, Michael Zedeler
<michael@zedeler.dk> wrote:

>Rado wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:06:04 +0200, "Poul Nielsen" <pn@gi.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article108683.ece
>>>
>>> 8-årig autistisk dreng død efter en uddrivelses-seance med healerpræst 
>> 
>> Og medicinsk behandling er den 3. største dødsårsag i USA, ifølge
>> Journal of the American Medical Association:			
>> 
>> ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
>> 
>> 12,000 -- unnecessary surgery 
>> 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals 
>> 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals 
>> 80,000 -- infections in hospitals 
>> 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs 
>
>Hehe. Den er meget god.

Min pointe var primært at når en person der er under alternativ
behandling lemlæstes eller dør på grund af behandlingen (hvilket
faktisk sker temmelig sjældent, og kun med tvivlsomme metoder), så er
det på forsiden af alle medierne, mens vi ikke hører ret meget om de
mange der dør eller lemlæstes af lægebehandling. 

>Skal vi ikke lige tage tallene een gang til, denne gang korrigeret for 
>hvor stor andel af befolkningen der bruger konventionel medicin hhv. 
>alternativ medicin? Husk også at sammenligne de samme sygdomme og tage 
>højde for folk der i et sygdomsforløb skifter imellem alternativ og 
>konventionel medicin, imens du er igang.

Det får du ikke noget ud af alligevel med hensyn til at forstå hvordan
tingene i virkeligheden hænger sammen. Hvis vi virkelig skal analysere
hele det område og have factsene på bordet her så ender vi et helt
andet sted. Nemlig der at det i realiteten er ligegyldigt hvilken
behandlingsform du vælger, sålænge du tror tilstrækkeligt på
behandlingen effektivitet. 

At jeg alligevel er fortaler for visse former for alternativ medicin
fremfor den etablerede skyldes flere ting:

1. de har ingen negative virkninger eller bivirkninger - i værste fald
virker de bare ikke (hvilket primært skyldes individuelle psykologiske
faktorer eller uvidenhed). 

2. man skærer ikke i kroppen eller fjerner vigtige dele af den eller
fylder den med giftige kemikalier eller dødelige stråler. De medfører
intet ubehag fysisk eller psykisk.

3. de handler generelt om arbejde med naturen i stedet for mod den, og
stimulere kroppen til at helbrede sig selv, hvilket den sagtens kan
næsten uanset hvad den fejler (sundhed er kroppens normale tilstand)
hvis bare man anvender den rigtige strategi og patienten på det
psykologiske plan "tillader" sig selv at blive rask, og tror på det er
muligt. De sidste to ting er faktisk det allerstørste problem i den
her form for behandling. 

4. de er baseret på en virkelig og tilbundsgående forståelse at
sammenhængen mellem krop og psyke hvilket netop er det der gør dem så
effektive, når man ellers forstår at udnytte dem rigtigt. 

På alle 4 punkter er de behandlingsformer jeg er fortaler for
lægevidenskaben overlegne. 

Der er iøvrigt særdeles solid evidens for at en af de vigtigste
faktorer i al helbredelse er troen på at den behandling man modtager
virker. Det gælder både konventionel og alternativ behandling. Dette
understreges af at de former for alternativ behandling der udelukkende
er baseret på tro eller psykologiske metoder som regel også er de der
medfører de mest radikale og varige helbredelser, primært fordi man
her har den indsigt der gør det muligt at udnytte kroppens
selvhelbredende kræfter optimalt. Placeboeffekten er kun toppen af
isbjerget, en svag indikation af de muligheder der er på det her
område. 

Her er et eksempel:

"Tumors That Melt Like Snowballs on a Hot Stove

Understanding the role such factors play in a placebo's effectiveness
is important, for it shows how our ability to control the body
holographic is molded by our beliefs. Our minds have the power to get
rid of warts, to clear our bronchial tubes, and to mimic the
painkilling ability of morphine, but because we are unaware that we
possess the power, we must be fooled into using it. This might almost
be comic if it were not for the tragedies that often result from our
ignorance of our own power.

No incident better illustrates this than a now famous case reported by
psychologist Bruno Klopfer. Klopfer was treating a man named Wright
who had advanced cancer of the lymph nodes. All standard treatments
had been exhausted, and Wright appeared to have little time left. His
neck, armpits, chest, abdomen, and groin were filled with tumors the
size of oranges, and his spleen and liver were so enlarged that two
quarts of milky fluid had to be drained out of his chest every day.

But Wright did not want to die. He had heard about an exciting new
drug called Krebiozen, and he begged his doctor to let him try it. At
first his doctor refused because the drug was only being tried on
people with a life expectancy of at least three months. But Wright was
so unrelenting in his entreaties, his doctor finally gave in. He gave
Wright an injection of Krebiozen on Friday, but in his heart of hearts
he did not expect Wright to last the weekend. Then the doctor went
home.

To his surprise, on the following Monday he found Wright out of bed
and walking around. Klopfer reported that his tumors had "melted like
snowballs on a hot stove" and were half their original size. This was
a far more rapid decrease in size than even the strongest X-ray
treatments could have accomplished. Ten days after Wright's first
Krebiozen treatment, he left the hospital and was, as far as his
doctors could tell, cancer free. When he had entered the hospital he
had needed an oxygen mask to breathe, but when he left he was well
enough to fly his own plane at 12,000 feet with no discomfort.

Wright remained well for about two months, but then articles began to
appear asserting that Krebiozen actually had no effect on cancer of
the lymph nodes. Wright, who was rigidly logical and scientific in his
thinking, became very depressed, suffered a relapse, and was
readmitted to the hospital. This time his physician decided to try an
experiment. He told Wright that Krebiozen was every bit as effective
as it had seemed, but that some of the initial supplies of the drug
had deteriorated during shipping. He explained, however, that he had a
new highly concentrated version of the drug and could treat Wright
with this. Of course the physician did not have a new version of the
drug and intended to inject Wright with plain water. To create the
proper atmosphere he even went through an elaborate procedure before
injecting Wright with the placebo.

Again the results were dramatic. Tumor masses melted, chest fluid
vanished, and Wright was quickly back on his feet and feeling great.
He remained symptom-free for another two months, but then the American
Medical Association announced that a nationwide study of Krebiozen had
found the drug worthless in the treatment of cancer. This time
Wright's faith was completely shattered. His cancer blossomed anew and
he died two days later.

Wright's story is tragic, but it contains a powerful message: When we
are fortunate enough to bypass our disbelief and tap the healing
forces within us, we can cause tumors to melt away overnight.

In the case of Krebiozen only one person was involved, but there are
similar cases involving many more people. Take a chemotherapeutic
agent called cis-platinum. When cis-platinum first became available
it, too, was touted as a wonder drug, and 75 percent of the people who
received it benefited from the treatment. But after the initial wave
of excitement and the use of cis-platinum became more routine, its
rate of effectiveness dropped to about 25 to 30 percent. Apparently
most of the benefit obtained from cis-platinum was due to the placebo
effect." (Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe)

Mere her:

http://5-dimension.org/members/talbot/HU-90-97.pdf

Og et ud af mange eksempler på hvad målrettet alternativ behandling af
denne slags kan udrette:

http://5-dimension.org/members/misc/VEV86-1-Brofman.pdf




-- 
Rado

 The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance
 but the illusion of knowledge.