This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Biofeedback - Replacing Medicine?

Post by Mousysqueak

Now that they have been told before hand that its "stronger" they will be thinking this when they take it, and the mind convinces itself that it was indeed stronger and they are now fine.

Yeah, I'm with you on the whole thought process, but I happen to use "homeopathic" medication. =P
In all honesty, I don't think it would cost much of anything to start training people in Biofeedback. It would just take a small group bombarding random places on the internet, and it might stick. Think of it this way - all the "memes" that come off of 4chan, they have no real meaning, do they? They're a "cult phenomenon," and I don't see any reason why this couldn't be as well.
No, I'm not sitting here trying to start that.

Post by Kalisha

Post by Mousysqueak

I think you're taking the clinical definition of biofeedback and turning it into some sort of mystical "will yourself better" thing, but that's not what it is. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, you're basically hooking yourself up to a computer so that it can tell you to relax and de-stress. It's like the sci-fi version of meditating or doing yoga.

We know that stress negatively affects our heart rate and blood pressure, that it causes headaches and just generally makes us "feel bad." Those are the things that biofeedback can fix - things that usually don't need medication anyway.

Heart rate and blood pressure are the exception to that rule, as people are often medicated for them. However, the majority of people being medicated have contributing factors other than stress (e.g. poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, bum genetics) that biofeedback won't fix. If stress is the only factor in the equation, then sure, biofeedback might help and be able to replace medication for that particular individual at some point in the future - but the same goes for whatever their de-stressing technique of choice is.

Interesting perspective, and I agree somewhat. The "scientific" definition of Biofeedback IS more of a machine-based form of meditation. You're hooked up to a specific machine that give you "X" reading about "Y" part of your body (e.g. heart rate). The idea (using the heart rate example) is to "will" yourself to keep your heart rate below a certain point. If it goes above that point, a light/noise makes you aware of that. The goal is to keep it below that point and gain sort of a "thought memory" , so at a later time, you can do the same thing (keep your heart rate below a certain point) without the feedback from the machine.

I'm not going to hunt down some scientific study to prove that ^ happens because I paid a *COUGHCOUGHCOUGH* small sum of money to go through the process described above.

By definition, Biofeedback is just that - controlling different functions of your body. I agree that it doesn't really DO anything to "cure" us of the things that you say it can't cure, but why couldn't it? I'm not trying to turn the clinical definition of Biofeedback into something. I'm trying to expand the idea of Biofeedback - I brought the idea to this forum to get some feedback from the community.

EDIT: Typo.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

I'm sorry, but I really don't follow what you're doing here. There is no "agree" or "disagree" with something like this. Either there is scientific evidence or there isn't.

Post by Mousysqueak

I'm sorry, but I really don't follow what you're doing here. There is no "agree" or "disagree" with something like this. Either there is scientific evidence or there isn't.

There's the difference, right there. Your brain wants to see proof that something exists before you acknowledge its existence - there's nothing wrong with that. I like to twist "science" into different ideas and see what I can make. From there, I get feedback on these ideas from various communities. If they seem to have some merit (according to the opinions of others and myself), I toss them to some "scientific" people that I have strong contacts with. They do some further research, and occasionally, it turns out to have even a microscopic amount of merit.

This is what I do for fun, and I can understand why it bothers you. =P

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Your brain wants to see proof that something exists before you acknowledge its existence.
No, my brain wants to not make baseless extrapolations. I'm all for "think-tanking" new ideas up. But there is a very strong line between theory and baseless extrapolation.

I'm not "bothered" by your posts. I just see you going nowhere. You start with a what-if and somehow arrive at something you seem to think it viable.

Post by 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Mousysqueak

I'm not "bothered" by your posts. I just see you going nowhere. You start with a what-if and somehow arrive at something you seem to think it viable.

I can respect that, but you have to realize that this is my way of getting my brain to work. I go to an "advanced" high school where I take some of the most advanced classes that I can get my hands on. I do advanced extra-curricular studies on theoretical physics and psychology, and I still end up bored out of my mind. I spend 7 to 8 hours, 5 days a week (at school), wanting stab my pencil through my brain. Yeah, when I end up working full time (post-college), I'm probably SoL - I'm likely going to end up doing the same damn thing every day. But, I'd rather enjoy my high school/college time by exploring random things.

The point isn't to get anywhere. The point is to explore the possibility of getting somewhere.

A really cool post that I won't quote for fear of creating a wall of text that will crit people for over 9000 damage.

I agree with what you're saying, but I can't help but wonder if the "limit" of biofeedback really exists, or if we're just told that it's there. I realize that this is going to sound tin-foil-hat-ish, but bear with me:

The medical industry makes their money by basically treating the symptoms of things. I can understand why you'd disagree, but look at most doctors. You go to their office with "X" set of symptoms. With their training, the doctors can test you and figure out that this set of symptoms is caused by "Y" number of things. On some occasions, they can get this list down to 1 thing (in the case of cancer), but on many other occasions, they can't. Take, for example, the flu/common cold. There IS a set group of symptoms caused by each of these; however, there are a number of other viruses that have NOTHING to do with the flu/"cold" that can cause these same symptoms:

Going scientific (beyond saying that "this is common knowledge") here for fear of aggroing Hyperspace again. xD

Symptoms of the flu according to teh interwebz.

Fever (100º F or greater)
Headache
Muscle aches
Chills
Extreme tiredness
Cough
Runny nose

This obviously isn't a complete (or 100% scientifically "accurate") list, as I didn't pull this out of Science, but it gives you a rough idea of where I'm getting my point.

When you go into a doctor's office with any number of these symptoms, you could be diagnosed with the flu. Hell, you could end with with a full blood work/God knows what other tests and find out that you have (literally) a burr up your butt. I donno. The point is that they're going off the symptoms because there isn't a realistic way of narrowing your ailment down to 1 thing 100% of the time. They might get to 99% (They sometimes send a sample of your mucus to a lab to test for flu.), but what about that 1%?

IF there is the 1% (could be more, could be .000000000000000000000001%), why can't we use psychological medicine to INCREASE that 1%?

Would the medical community and the pharmaceutic industry want that?

EDIT: Clarification.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Why wonder when scientific research has been done? That's what I'm getting at.

Post by Mousysqueak

Why wonder when scientific research has been done? That's what I'm getting at.

Because it keeps me interested, and it sparks discussion to challenge that which has been "established."

This thread has been near the top of the "Last Response" list on this forum since its creation. I'd call that an "active" discussion. Yeah, most of the response has been attacking me for posting something that appears to be pointless, and it will probably shift to me being a selfish SoB for trying to spark a discussion for the sole purpose of keeping my brain interested and thinking. Isn't that the whole purpose of communication though?

Post by 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Mousysqueak

Actually, assuming you meant to say you want to reduce that 1% not increase, Biofeedback is more likely to actually increase that 1% diagnosis error as it can tend to treat symptoms rather than the cause simply because it treats every "ailment" simultaneously by increase immune response.

General medical treatment treats specific areas. E.g. an antibiotic will only treat bacterial infection. If the antibiotic is ineffective the patient has a non bacterial infection (or as unfortunately tends to be the case, the bacteria is antibiotic resistant). By using specific drugs the range of possible diseases is reduced leading to a more accurate diagnosis on the second attempt.

That's where the other parts of Psychological-Based-Medicine come into play - self diagnosis. I'm not currently aware of any methods of using self-diagnosis outside of muscle-based testing, and that's a seriously controversial topic that I was hoping to avoid.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

Yeah, most of the response has been attacking me for posting something that appears to be pointless
Please quote the posts that you believe are attacking you.

...to challenge that which has been "established."
If you're going to challenge or support scientific data, you'd be ill-advised to use evidence that fails to provide the same surety as the evidence in question. As hard as you try, thinking something could be the case doesn't override scientific evidence. I would advise you to read the meta-analysis I linked, which contains full references for further reading. Then, if you don't agree with what has been presented, go out and find evidence for your counter-position, and use that as a vehicle for further discussion.

Post by 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Mousysqueak

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_testing

Post by 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Mousysqueak

This is basically the point at which I cannot continue this on a "scientific" path. Let me explain why.

My family has been using alternative medicine for the past 8 or 9 years. Our doctor has cured himself of cancer 17 times (he was diagnosed by the traditional medical community each time, AFTER he had figured it out himself). The doctors that tested him each time still are unaware of how he was cured.

He sit there telling us stories similar to this (him being able to diagnose something in 2 minutes that took the traditional medical community 20 tests ), and this has caused me to have somewhat of a "twisted" sense of thinking on this matter. I realize that I cannot scientifically prove any of this to you, but it's similar to the Creationism/Evolution debate - you can't produce conclusive evidence either way (meaning that the other theory is completely destroyed) with our current knowledge of science.

I appreciate all your thoughts on this, and I'm probably going to have to leave the discussion. I'll post where I can, but we're at the point where I'm spewing random BS at you until I can prove it scientifically (which I cannot). Thank you for your time in discussing this - I hope the discussion continues, but there isn't really anyone to take my place, and all of you agree with each other.

I've learned quite a bit about the way that this community reacts to this type of discussion, and I'm planning to format future topics in a much different manner. I look forward to hearing your views on other topics.

Thanks again, and I hope you have a great rest of the day.

Post by Hyperspacerebel

you can't produce conclusive evidence either way (meaning that the other theory is completely destroyed) with our current knowledge of science.
The meta-analysis I linked seems to demonstrate otherwise. Again, your thought experiment, anecdotal evidence, etc. are not grounds to refute or confirm the scientific evidence provided.

I've learned quite a bit about the way that this community reacts to this type of discussion
We see an issue, and we research and provide the best evidence for or against the position that we can find. That's how all knowledge comes about. You seem to be content with not studying or acknowledging the evidence, which kind of halts any possible discussion.

Post by 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Oh, it's over already...?

I realize that I cannot scientifically prove any of this to you, but it's similar to the Creationism/Evolution debate - you can't produce conclusive evidence either way (meaning that the other theory is completely destroyed) with our current knowledge of science.

Yes and no. You can provide evidence to suggest that it doesn't work, as Hyper has done. This is contrary to Creationism, where there can be no possible evidence to support / deny it.

Our doctor has cured himself of cancer 17 times (he was diagnosed by the traditional medical community each time, AFTER he had figured it out himself).

Two points on this:

a) Of course he'd be diagnosed after he figured it out, because he's not going to get himself checked out for cancer if he didn't think he had it in the first place.

b) If he's 'cured himself' 17 times, I'd suggest that the cure isn't terribly effective, no? More than likely, the cancer had simply gone into remission.

The point isn't to get anywhere. The point is to explore the possibility of getting somewhere.

I like your optimism, but what you're doing at the moment is saying "The sky is green!", and trying to defend your claim against all the evidence against you.

Theorising is great and all, but at the end of the day, theories have to be put to the test in practical, scientific tests. You're saying that you can't scientifically prove it, but that's not true - you can test it the same way that drug researchers test their medicinal drugs. The problem for your argument is that such tests have been done already, and they've shown that it doesn't work.

The exploration of the possibility has been, and is being done. The problem is that you're exploring the 'definite' of getting somewhere, without accepting the (1-x) probability that your theory won't get you anywhere.

Yeah, when I end up working full time (post-college), I'm probably SoL - I'm likely going to end up doing the same damn thing every day.

No, that's not true. If you become a researcher, which you're suggesting you have the brains to be, then you'll be working on whatever projects you like (once you get to that stage in a career). But, based on your contributions to this thread, it doesn't suggest that you'd make it very far in a research industry, simply because you're not acknowledging the results in the field to date.

There are two parts to having an open mind. One part is to be open to new ideas and explore them to their fullest potential. The other part is to be open to challenges and evidence against your current mindset, accept them and adapt.

Biofeedback - Replacing Medicine?

Post Reply