Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doctors DO "encourage" spontaneous healing for example when they have people wait a bit before launching into treatment. I've seen it more in terms of general aches, pains, sprains that are minor. Rather than jumping into PT/rehab the advice is to see how it is in a few weeks and THEN if it still is causing an issue, pursuing treatment.
People can practice all the spontaneous healing they want to...however, it is extremely risky in cases of cancer, etc. There is no reason to not take vitamins or whatever while traditional treatment is taking place.
The worst thing is to be like Steve Jobs - no spontaneous healing for HIM and he stopped traditional treatments...and died. No responsible doctor will advise such a thing but apparently Jobs' ego told him different. So sure, you can do all the "cleanses", supps, or various woo woo you want - but don't bet your life on it alone because it doesn't happen often.
No one ever said doctors are right 100% of the time...and spontaneous healing certainly doesn't happen 100% either. - you do what you want.
Right, Steve Jobs was a fruitarian. Fruitarians typically eat only fruit. And to me it's no surprise he got pancreatic cancer. How could he be so smart and yet so dumb?
The doctor who wrote the book I speak of studied spontaneous healing for 15 years. So he must have had lots of cases to keep him busy for that length of time, not just a few. And he was well qualified with 3 degrees. He's a medical doctor/surgeon, psychiatrist, and has a master of divinity degree.
I believe he mentioned somewhere in the book that 1 case in 100,000 represents under reporting because many cases never get reported.
What I wonder is: Is there at least a theory of what causes it to happen? What is the mechanism. Even if it is rare, where is the interest in finding out how it works? I don't remember the author presenting a theory in his book. Perhaps I'll skip ahead to the last couple of chapters to see if he gives any idea about that.
It could be a bit dangerous for doctors to tell their patients that they might just randomly get better, I think people have a tendency to believe that they are the <0.01% who will be able to deny treatment and not die, while the odds are very much against that. I don't know what the actual benefit would be even if that wasn't the case. Placebos might work in cases of pain or similar symptoms but much less so in other illnesses.
Not only would it be dangerous to tell patients, but dangerous for the cancer treatment business.
I don't think the placebo effect has anything to do with spontaneous remissions as outlined in this book. To do a scientific double- blind study, you would have to have two groups. One group would get regular cancer treatments and the other group would get what? No treatments? A pill?
You could say that going to a faith healer is a placebo but the placebo effect usually doesn't last long term
If the placebo effect could cure cancer, people would be going to a hypnotist to get a cure.
People getting cured from "placebo effect" is one of the things that are measured in any medical study. Maybe there is no "placebo effect". Maybe it's just "spontaneous healing".
It's ironic that the placebo effect is looked down on as some inferior result when the subject becomes healed.
It's a good thing when people heal, and it doesn't matter how it happens, but if they knew the power of their minds, it would be helpful to many.
As it stands now, doctors are "experts" or gods and the rest of the people are just stupid and inferior.
In my early days as a pharmacist, it was not uncommon to receive a prescription for a drug called Obecalp
Spelled backwards, it is placebo. e would make capsules out of powered sugar, or some other innert material
In pain control, the placebo effect is roughly 35-40%
Not sure there is anything like spontaneous healing, other than remissions (brief or long term)
Let's say there's a massive cancer that has spread from the pancreas throughout the patients mid-section. And then there's a spontaneous healing that takes place leaving no trace of cancer.
It's a spontaneous remission, period. There's never any guarantee that cancer won't start up again in the future, and there's no way to determine if it's related to the first cancer or not.
There was a very good PBS documentary on spontaneous cancer remissions years ago. They found 6 people whose records proved they actually had cancer and were cured. My impression was that it was a one in a million occurrence. There are 18 million new cancer cases a year and this documentary found 6 people to film.
In all the cases the patients had gone through standard cancer treatments and were told nothing else could be done. Two memorable cases were one woman whose face was covered with melanomas washed her face and the melanomas started falling off. Over a short period of time they were all gone and no new ones appeared. The other memorable case was a man who had gone through all the treatments and was told there was nothing else that could be done. So he quit his job and started spending all his money living the high life. Travel, the best food, the best whiskey, the best cigars. 6 months later he was cancer free.
They never figured out why these remissions happened, but they were fully documented rather than some undocumented anecdotes by someone writing a book.
One scammer doctor writes books about curing cancer with his special regimen and diet. He claims to have cured 30,000 patients, which is absurd if you do the math. The proof he is a scammer though is that if you look at the reviews of his books on Amazon, not one person wrote a review claiming that they were cured by him. If someone cured me I'd display all my records on a video on youtube and let the whole world know. The least I would do is thank him in an Amazon review of his book.
Let's say there's a massive cancer that has spread from the pancreas throughout the patients mid-section. And then there's a spontaneous healing that takes place leaving no trace of cancer.
It's a spontaneous remission, period. There's never any guarantee that cancer won't start up again in the future, and there's no way to determine if it's related to the first cancer or not.
I do not believe that you will ever see "massive cancer that has spread from the pancreas throughout the patients mid-section.with a spontaneous healing that takes place leaving no trace of cancer. "
Once the cancer metastasizes from the pancreas, you are toast! Time for Hospice
I don't believe in spontaneous healing, as debated above. Why don't we call it by the real name -- unexplained healing? You can pep-talk to yourself all you want, but I doubt it would heal anything other than some psychosomatic problem.
Unexplained healing does occur, but let's not kid ourselves that it's because of our vitamins or meditation or "healthy living." It's because we've been GIVEN a second chance.
So what you're saying is the doctors have so much control over the information that the patients themselves talking about it doesn't get the word out? On message boards or otherwise?
When you go looking for it there's no guarantee you will find it, some don't. And if you do find it, it happens
without the help of medical treatments. That's what science calls sponaneous healing. It has to have some name and that's it.
No, I am saying that spontaneous healing is when you heal no matter what you do or what is done to you - it happens without external stimulus. If you do xyz and heal, it may have been caused by what you did, or it may have been spontaneous meaning it would have happened without doing xyz.
When a patient tells his doctor that he did xyz and is now healed, most doctors say that xyz had no effect --- that it was spontaneous, that he would have healed without doing xyz. They are looked down upon if they stray from that explanation, but not quite as much as in years past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongevitySeeker
What I wonder is: Is there at least a theory of what causes it to happen?
There are several hypotheses about our innate immune system. There are mind and body hypotheses also but they are difficult to study. There may be additional ideas.
Last edited by SimplySagacious; 03-18-2022 at 06:13 PM..
No, I am saying that spontaneous healing is when you heal no matter what you do or what is done to you - it happens without external stimulus. If you do xyz and heal, it may have been caused by what you did, or it may have been spontaneous meaning it would have happened without doing xyz.
When a patient tells his doctor that he did xyz and is now healed, most doctors say that xyz had no effect --- that it was spontaneous, that he would have healed without doing xyz. They are looked down upon if they stray from that explanation, but not quite as much as in years past.
There are several hypotheses about our innate immune system. There are mind and body hypotheses also but they are difficult to study. There may be additional ideas.
If you look at the context that you are referring to the patient initiates the subject of telling the doctor that he did X and the doctor then says that no, it's spontaneous. The patient attributes it to something he thought he did to treat himself. There's no mention of the condition that is being referred to but there is a big difference between acute conditions, chronic benign conditions, and terminal conditions. The only time they would use that term would be with acute conditions. Whether it be any condition there is a body's natural healing that takes place. I would not have used the term spontaneous but simply a normal healing process.
There's a twist to it because by the patient telling the doctor the patient assumes that the doctor should take him seriously and probably meant to educate the doctor so he can then use that same treatment on others. That's why the doctor draws the line and states that it had no effect. The less confrontational approach would be to state that there is no clinical evidence to support that ie prove that and since there isn't any then he can't treat patients without any proof as that would be outside the standard of care. The emotional attachment there is don't tell me how to do my job. Do I tell you how to do your job? If you really are interested in telling a doctor and actually convincing him something works then do a PubMed search and cite the literature. That would sway him more than anything one says anecdotally.
With regards to cancer, there have been many theories out there concerning cancer. One has to start out with validated observations. One then comes up with theories trying to explain those observations. It was noted that older people tend to get more cancers than younger people and some people have tried to explain this on declining immunity. As mentioned melanoma has anecdotal examples of spontaneous remissions. The assumption some have made is immune healing to explain it. It is not by coincidence that recent immunotherapies have started with melanoma with success.
There have been observations with regards to the EBV virus and it's a questionable association with autoimmune disease and in some blood cancers. The question is if one comes up with a vaccine against EBV does it reduce the incidence of those conditions?
Right, Steve Jobs was a fruitarian. Fruitarians typically eat only fruit. And to me it's no surprise he got pancreatic cancer. How could he be so smart and yet so dumb?
The doctor who wrote the book I speak of studied spontaneous healing for 15 years. So he must have had lots of cases to keep him busy for that length of time, not just a few. And he was well qualified with 3 degrees. He's a medical doctor/surgeon, psychiatrist, and has a master of divinity degree.
I believe he mentioned somewhere in the book that 1 case in 100,000 represents under reporting because many cases never get reported.
What I wonder is: Is there at least a theory of what causes it to happen? What is the mechanism. Even if it is rare, where is the interest in finding out how it works? I don't remember the author presenting a theory in his book. Perhaps I'll skip ahead to the last couple of chapters to see if he gives any idea about that.
WOW - 1 in 100,000? Yes, fascinating...and why, playing the odds, would I EVER consider that in the slightest? Well, maybe after I'd been pronounced dead essentially by half a dozen doctors. Maybe if your/his number was 5%...or even 1% but I don't think simple "undercounting" is gonna get you from 0.001% all the way to 1%.
Edge case/unicorns are not enough to affect my every day behavior - too many other factors that are way more impactful to spend my time/energy/money on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
