| Author |
 Topic  |
|
shawnsmith
Czech Republic
2048 Posts |
 Posted - 12/21/2006 : 12:19:32
|
Dr Sarno writes that the primary message of his book "The Mindbody Prescription" is the following:
"We are all under one kind of pressure or an another. We all have internal reactions to those pressures, and all of us will have physical symptoms in response to those inner feelings. No matter how we react to life's pressures consciously, another world of reactions exists in the unconscious. Because we are not aware of those unconscious feelings and cannot, therefore, control them, and because they are so threatening and frightening, the brain will automatically induce physical symptoms to prevent dangerous feelings from becoming overt, and thus becoming conscious. This is how mindbody symptoms come about - and they are universal in Western society. They are not a sign of mental or emotional illness. To look upon them as abnormal or aberrant leads to gross medical mismanagement."
- The Mindbody Prescription page 8
|
Edited by - shawnsmith on 12/22/2006 07:00:40 |
|
|
Redsandro
Netherlands
217 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 20:36:37
|
I've almost finished the book, and I remember reading that.
Even though it is correct, I found it's written so tightly that it immediately repels non-believers. That's no good entrance. I've noticed that more than once. But, the book also provides more information than the others I've read. That's why I think TDM is definitely a recommendation, but people who are new should first read one like MBP because it's more convincing instead of just the truth.
X is best
vs.
X is best because of the new patented oxyactive elements in the renewed formula
Nevermind, I'm not good at marketing, but what I said is how I feel about it.
____________
No Hope = No Fear. |
 |
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2006 : 23:44:58
|
I actually like that quote. I think that on it's own that quote actually stands as a very good summary, perhaps in part because standing on its own it is short enough that one doesn't expect more. Unfortunately, the problem for me is that I expected a bit more when dealing with a whole book than seemed to be presented.
I, as a new person to TMS theory, had what I think is the same problem with the style in whole of MBP that Redsandro mentions wrt the introduction (though it was more serious in the introduction). I think the general concepts are good, but the style was offputting enough that I really had to bite the bullet and fight my instincts to keep going (this despite the fact I was ready to read a book suggesting a phsychological connection).
To tell the truth, I would hesitate a bit to give MBP to people I know--despite the role it has played in my recovery over the last few weeks. Because if they didn't get past the style and weakness in the presentation of the evidence, I'm pretty sure my credibility would take a hit. And on a less selfish note (yes, I have one), I fear they would reject the theory outright possibly hurting themselves. I would like to be able to hand off something on this subject to friends, and I wonder what Redsandro or anyone else with similar reservations recommends as the best "hand-off" for people who may have non-back TMS issues? Most people I know are pretty used to reading dry scientific theory, and to them (as myself) MBP is likely to come off as something a bit too pop psychology (and frankly just too darned enthusiastic), as well as not quite scientifically rigorous enough. Are there any more academic treatments of the subject published somewhere that present a good overview--because that would be more the style that folks I know would be looking for and open to. |
Edited by - alexis on 12/22/2006 23:51:41 |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2006 : 08:33:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnsmith
Dr Sarno writes that the primary message of his book "The Mindbody Prescription" is the following:
"We are all under one kind of pressure or an another. We all have internal reactions to those pressures, and all of us will have physical symptoms in response to those inner feelings. No matter how we react to life's pressures consciously, another world of reactions exists in the unconscious. Because we are not aware of those unconscious feelings and cannot, therefore, control them, and because they are so threatening and frightening, the brain will automatically induce physical symptoms to prevent dangerous feelings from becoming overt, and thus becoming conscious. This is how mindbody symptoms come about - and they are universal in Western society. They are not a sign of mental or emotional illness. To look upon them as abnormal or aberrant leads to gross medical mismanagement."
- The Mindbody Prescription page 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For the life of me I, cannot see what anyone would find objectionable in the above quote by Dr. Sarno. The Good Doctor has had 30 years of clinical experience, working with real people, with real world problems.
Why would someone in a lab, with a bunson burner, needling mice or monkeys, surrounded by a bunch of test-tubes be evidenceraly more credible?
If you lose crediblility with your "friends" and acquaintances, because they think Sarno doesn't write a good intro to his book, what kind of friends are those?-lose 'em.
Sarno writes for the everyman. He wrote a book for his fellow scientists, but couldn't get anyone to publish it--I guess because scientists are SO much more open-minded than mere back-pain sufferers.
The belief in the religion of $cience has created this brave new world and the epedemic of TMS. The triumph of style over substance.
|
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 18:49:19
|
The problem with engaging in the evidence arguement wrt Sarno, is that it would actually be cruel of those of us who understand the weaknesses of the book to point them out to those who do not. Belief is important here, and I don't want to poke holes in anyones comfort level with these books. But, although they appear to offer up many good and seemingly true ideas, they simply aren't good, well written science, and you will never be able to convince anyone who really understands science that they are.
There are lots of reasons that correct things may not be accepted by the scientific community, and they include bad writing, prejudices in the community, and lack of evidence. For what should be obvious reasons I'm not going to spend my time here picking apart something that helps people, but you should understand that for some of us weak science (and science is not only people in labcoats with test tubes...I use this term in a very broad sense) is a problem, and that we would like to be able to offer our friends and family something more intellectually rigorous. |
Edited by - alexis on 12/27/2006 18:50:51 |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 20:10:09
|
Alexis, I alaways find it amusing when people criticize Dr. Sarno because his science is weak or something to that effect, his books don't have enough scientific studies to back them up. I'm on the road and don't have my Sarno handy and really don't feel like taking the trouble to cite chapter and verse.
What it boils down to is, you either buy TMS theory, or you don't. The faith you need, is faith in yourself. That you can fix yourself better than the medical/peudo-medical/new-age/supplemental/hands-on/hands-off quackery that's going on today in hospitals, drug stores and "health-food" stores.
I remember my yoga teacher, saying the biggest problem he had teaching was that his students were too well educated.
Just read your Sarno. Read his latest book. Read about all the BAD science, passing itself off as fact.
Someday in the future when history looks at medicine today and the "science" behind it, it will be seen as the hight of barabarism and butchery. It will be on a level with barber's doing blood-letting. People today are having surgery at the drop of a hat as if it were aspirin. Many of them are for TMS or normal degenerative changes due to ageing. Sarno says the best placebo we have is surgery. People love surgery. They love plasic surgery even better. It's amazing how many women are running around with the skin on their faces stretched so taught that they look like something out of a segment of Rod Sterling's "Twilight Zone"'
I am not at all embarassed by being a devotee of the Good Doctor and his form of medicine. It's worked for me for a myriad of things. He has cured thousands of patients over his 30 years of clinical practice. I repeat, for the life of me what more evidence does one need. I'm not impressed by all the medical mumbo-jumbo that clothes today's bad medical science. How many people have Dr. Sarno's detractors cured? How many have they killed?
Alexis, I have heard for years about the holes in Dr. Sarno's theory and it being weak in the science dept. Those so called weaknesses are it's strenghts. The weaknesses are in the readers faith in their ability to fix themselves and the holes are in their heads.
Let's end the year with a rockin' bang.
Cheers, from tt on the road in Ely, Nevada, staying at a great Ramada, on the Loneliest Hiway, 50, with a casino, a swimming pool and a hot-tub in the lobby right outside my door, that I'm about to jump into and read some more weak Sarno bad science.
P.s. Sorry for this untidy post but I left my editor home. |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 22:14:10
|
Randolph, thanks for the great metaphors. I think I felt the same “nose-holding” sensation, and was so glad I did it to find the real gems hidden in Sarno's writing. I think he has made some really valuable contributions, and if the style he uses helps more people than it deters, I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable suggesting he do otherwise…but I’d sure like to get my hands on some good alternatives.
I worry here, though, about a tension between the needs of two different groups who share this message board. This is basically a support and help board -- and it *does* help me to know that there are critical folks out there like yourself (and others whose names I won't bring into the fray) who are also able to find the valuable stuff in Sarno's work and theories. And yet I do think that we are something of a hindrance to those who could succeed better with a more fundamentalist version of Sarnoism, and that we are at the same time ourselves deterred by that strain.
And I don't know that there is a clean resolution to this conflict. Unfortunately, I think the two groups need to co-exist and yet find support in knowing that there are others out there like themselves who are succeeding with their own particular way of approaching the TMS issue. If you translate this into religion speak you might discern a difference between myself and Dawkins in my sympathies and even support for the benefits some gain from their less rational beliefs (OK, haven’t really read Dawkins for a while). That’s why I am worried about the fine line one treads in criticisms of these issues in this sort of environment. Anyway, glad to know you're here -- and good luck.
|
|
|
|
Stryder
686 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 23:00:00
|
alexis said: This is basically a support and help board --
I think the forum has done a lot of that too, even though that was not the original intent. Take a look at the words of the Creator...[partially reprinted here],,, see the link at the end for a more detailed discussion.
Take care, -Stryder
-----
austingary
USA
95 Posts
Posted - 06/29/2004 : 14:51:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One other thing. This board is Dave's baby now; you would have to ask him what he thinks it is and where he thinks it is going. But when it was my board, I never, ever thought of it as being a "support" group where people get together to trade positive affirmations. It was always a place for discussion and, yes, argument on topics related to TMS. That also involved people helping people, which was good, but that was not all the board was about.
We have had chiropractors, medical doctors and other medical and quasi-medical practitioners post here, people who were 100% opposed to everything Dr. Sarno stands for. They were not thrown off the board because they were not "positive" enough or didn't believe correctly enough; they were answered, questioned, contradicted -- which they were not used to, and they went away.
I fear for this country, one reason being that the schools no longer teach anyone how to think; they are only interested in teaching them what to think, i.e., political progaganda. In fact, any student who knows how to think and practices it -- meaning putting ideas, logically, to the test -- does not usually get along very well with the teachers and administrators.
Some of the people who post here are prime examples of those who simply have no clue about or any interest in thinking rationally. They are quite happy to simply choose what to believe and then never take in anything that doesn't support those beliefs.
This is a formula for totalitarianism. Let the sheep now all go, "Baaaaaaaaaa"!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More of this thread can be found at.... http://www.tmshelp.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=80&whichpage=2
|
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2006 : 23:37:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by alexis
Randolph, thanks for the great metaphors. I think I felt the same “nose-holding” sensation, and was so glad I did it to find the real gems hidden in Sarno's writing. I think he has made some really valuable contributions, and if the style he uses helps more people than it deters, I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable suggesting he do otherwise…but I’d sure like to get my hands on some good alternatives.
I worry here, though, about a tension between the needs of two different groups who share this message board. This is basically a support and help board -- and it *does* help me to know that there are critical folks out there like yourself (and others whose names I won't bring into the fray) who are also able to find the valuable stuff in Sarno's work and theories. And yet I do think that we are something of a hindrance to those who could succeed better with a more fundamentalist version of Sarnoism, and that we are at the same time ourselves deterred by that strain.
And I don't know that there is a clean resolution to this conflict. Unfortunately, I think the two groups need to co-exist and yet find support in knowing that there are others out there like themselves who are succeeding with their own particular way of approaching the TMS issue. If you translate this into religion speak you might discern a difference between myself and Dawkins in my sympathies and even support for the benefits some gain from their less rational beliefs (OK, haven’t really read Dawkins for a while). That’s why I am worried about the fine line one treads in criticisms of these issues in this sort of environment. Anyway, glad to know you're here -- and good luck.
Alexis, could you please translate the above into English, my membership to Mensa just expired.
regards,
tt |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 00:24:30
|
| Stryder, thanks for that glimpse back into the good old days of the board, deja vu all over again. |
|
|
|
HilaryN
United Kingdom
879 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 07:21:19
|
Interesting thread!
Randolph you expressed concern in another thread that having faith in TMS was like having faith in Jesus. Unfortunately it is a bit like that. I say “unfortunately” because I’m uncomfortable with the idea of blind faith.
When I read “The Mindbody Prescription”, the connection between physical state and emotions made logical sense to me, because I had already had experience of that connection. At the most basic observable level, we tighten our muscles when we are angry, and relax them when we are happy, but it goes deeper than that to a level we can’t observe.
I took an open-minded approach to trying out Sarno’s suggestions. I tried them out, but because the pain didn’t go away I decided that it wasn’t going to work for me. I’m sure that must happen to many people who read the book.
Some time later I was persuaded to have another go. (You can read my story if you click on my profile.)
Even at that time I thought to myself “Hmmm, here’s another book by someone who claims a 90+ % success rate in curing people.” I’ve observed in the past that people who claim this kind of success with their therapy tend to conveniently ignore people who don’t get better and those people drop out of their statistics. In Sarno’s case he claims success rate of 90+ %, but of course that doesn’t mean his approach would be successful with 90+ % of everybody with back pain. At the most he could claim 90+ % of people who have tried every other method.
I thought that I should probably get a balanced view and read some criticisms of Sarno and decide which side seemed more plausible.
But then I thought again about what he said about it only working if you believed in it and the reasons he gave for that. It occurred to me that if I started reading criticisms I would be shooting myself in the foot as far as having a chance of recovery was concerned, because I would be introducing doubts into my mind. I really wanted to get better, and I knew that my best chance of getting this to work was to go at it wholeheartedly and positively. I decided I should leave reading those criticisms until after recovery. (Since I’ve recovered I haven’t gone out of my way to find criticisms because there doesn’t seem much point. But the ones I have read haven’t added up to much as far as I can see.)
Now to this “science” word. First of all, some people claim that Sarno’s work is scientific, others claim it isn’t. I’m guessing the claim that it isn’t is because he hasn’t done double-blind trials. Alexis and Randolph have I got that right? If so, could you confirm, and if not, could you give me more explanation? I would appreciate that. If it is about the double-blind trial, could you suggest a way that this could be approached, because it seems to me that the subject doesn’t lend itself easily to that method of verification.
Secondly, I agree with Tom in that I think our society bows down to the “science” word as if it were God. We like to think that science is objective. But I’m sceptical about that. Usually people who set out to prove something “scientifically” have a vested reason in proving their theory and so their observations aren’t unbiased. I observed this at close hand one time and that experience made me wary of “scientific” claims. Notwithstanding that, I would still appreciate an answer to my question above.
Hilary N |
|
|
|
cheeryquery
Canada
56 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 08:26:37
|
I'm no scientist but agree that Sarno's approach is sloppy. I've always assumed he was too busy healing thousands of people to clean up his writing, do good trials, etc. Someone else should do this, no doubt, but complaining is not all that useful, imo.
I'm looking forward to responses to Hilary's request for clarification about what makes for good science. Science is important, no doubt about that, but in the real world whether or not a thing works is more important. Wouldn't it be sensible to reserve scientific judgment until someone comes along and does the science? Meanwhile, if it seems to works, use it.
Coincidentally, I happened to browse through a few pages of Dawkins'
God: the Delusion today. Basically, he says "This is what I believe, but I could be wrong". His conclusions are logical but his premise is his opinion, just a theory. I was an atheist when someone said to me, "If you want to know if there's a God, ask him." Seemed sensible so I did. And I had a profound experience of the presence of something much greater than myself. Since I am not ordinarily given to delusions, I have decided there is a God. Dawkins has clearly never had any sense of something greater than himself. So, we differ.
It's wise to keep an open mind, imo. Same with this board. All opinions welcome or at least I certainly hope so.
One last thought: it's possible that millions of people are being treated for illnesses that physically may not exist using methods that usually don't give relief. Is THAT good science? If so, I don't get it. |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 09:01:19
|
| Good science is like sex or brushing your teeth: if you do it right it's messy. |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 09:29:53
|
"I find your introducing the necessity of my "having faith" as a necessity to understanding you, a death-knell to understanding. All you seem to be doing to me is drawing an unnecessary line in the sand, creating enemies for a fight that is not necessary."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Randolph, I never said that, never, ever, ever. This is starting to resemble bad science. If one goes back into the distant bowels of this thread, I was merely making as innocuous comment, (I thought, silly me), in the holday spirit, about spirituality.
I merely said that, annecdoteley, I found over my years here, that people who expressed a sense of spirtuality seemed to do better with TMS stuff. I also put the word religion in there and that's what brought all the this un-G-dly ruckus about, and the G-D haters out of the woodwork. If I had just kept it to spirituality, I now realize, that would not have caused a "faith" furor.
Spirituality would have been cool because that includes everything from Reiki, Fung Shui, Rolfing, Ghost Busters, Chakras, Kundalini, Tatooing, Blue Green algae, Chi Gong, etc, etc, etc.
I mis-spoke, mea culpa, and said the word religion and that's not cool because that's apparently a buzz-word for Christianity. I'm not a Christian, but I have noticed the trend to start feeding them to the lions again. If our society continues in it's moral down-hill slide, I have no doubt we will have gladitorial spectacles in the future, maybe in a hundred years or maybe next year.
So trust me, swear to a redwood tree and a gray whale, I will never make the mistake of saying the "R" word on this forum again, (unless I forget, or for some other worthy excuse).
Gotta' hit the road now and get ahead of this blizzard coming in, find the elusive biscuits and gravy, breakfast in these parts get cut-off sharply before noon.
Cheers,
tt |
Edited by - tennis tom on 12/28/2006 09:32:00 |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 13:50:36
|
I'm glad to here that people want and have had a place to openly and critically discuss TMS. What I have seen so far on this board has been useful, but mostly in the nature of a help and advice format, with information coming from others who mostly just have their own experiences to share. This is great stuff--particularly the sharing of success stories, but it is not primarily currently serving as a forum to critically discuss TMS and related ideas. The points I would make are:
1) The name of the forum is TMSHelp. If it is intended to be other than a help forum, or to serve multiple purposes, I think the name should be different.
2) I don't think an academic style critical forum and a self-help group forum really mix all that well. If they are to co-exist, I would suggest that separate forums be created on the site. For instance, "TMSHelp" would continue to exist but a new section entitled something like "TMS Discussion" would be created for the more theoretical discussions. Appropriate explanatory subtitles would be created. |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 16:58:22
|
Hi Hillary -- Yes, the reason I found him unscientific had nothing to do with double blind trials, which I agree would be inappropriate. Further than that, I am not actually inclined to debate the validity of Sarno's work, though I do think there is a place for that and that the activity would be fruitful. And I certainly have no delusions about the objectivity of science--I just think there isn't a better or more objective method of learning in most arenas. And in the broadest sense, all observations are science--some are just stonger than others.
My interest in bringing up my reaction to Sarno was actually in the support group type context, which I've mentioned I understood to be a function of this board. For me it is important to know that there are others out there who are skeptical and yet having success and finding value in the work.
There are really a few reasons why this is important to me. First, and most importantly, is the question of whether a certain personality type is more likely to succeed in beating TMS. Those people engaged in the recent debate about religion and TMS may recall that despite being non-religious I came down on the side of encouraging that discussion. A part of that is because I worried initially that only "religious" or "believer" personality types may be successful in this endeavor. Here we are told that to succeed in beating TMS you must "believe". However, some people believe things more easily (with less evidence) than do others. The skeptics among us want to see other skeptics who are succeeding.
A second reason for engaging in the discussion of Sarno's scientificness was to get advice from others with similar reservations on books or articles they would recommend as supplemental materials.
I am not actually currently interested in a debate about Sarno's work for its own sake. I find the philosophy of science fascinating, and am much more tempted to take up the discussion of what makes good science...this is one I've tackled before and would love to discuss again. Degrees are offered in the subject, and hundreds of books published. But I don't think this is, at least for me, the place for the discussion. I think it matters to only to those of use who already started with the reservations, and I'm not sure that either we or anyone else is going to benefit from it. That said, if you folks do go on with the debate, I can't guarantee my temptation won't get the better of me at some point! |
Edited by - alexis on 12/28/2006 17:05:27 |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 18:04:48
|
"1) The name of the forum is TMSHelp. If it is intended to be other than a help forum, or to serve multiple purposes, I think the name should be different.
2) I don't think an academic style critical forum and a self-help group forum really mix all that well. If they are to co-exist, I would suggest that separate forums be created on the site. For instance, "TMSHelp" would continue to exist but a new section entitled something like "TMS Discussion" would be created for the more theoretical discussions. Appropriate explanatory subtitles would be created."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Is their anything else we can do for you, maybe breakfast in bed? |
Edited by - tennis tom on 12/28/2006 18:06:12 |
|
|
|
Redsandro
Netherlands
217 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 19:38:44
|
You've made another funny, heehee!
But I'd like to nominate this as quote of the month:
quote:
Originally posted by Randolph
Oh well ... glad I dug thru the poop to get a handle on what Dr. Sarno's talking about.
If I may use the above metaphor, in my opinion, even though Sarno's work is great and it helps, it does not have to be such a big pile of poo. If one thinks that it would be nicer when the Sarnopill was an easy swallow (without the poo), he wouln't automaticly be embracing the failing world of medicine we all know since it's in the book.
But I don't know if I agree with anyone. I don't necessarily want to see more proof, but I would applaude a rephrase of the book in a structured more-insights less-examples kind of way.
Also, I still disagree we need any faith at all; it's all about understanding and probability increasing untill - even when remaining skeptical - the ego gives up the trick and therefore creating a personal fact that makes the circle of understanding complete enough to know the truth. I think it's faith that makes us weak, for the one time that faith in anything is broken, doubt will be stuck to faith.
____________
No Hope = No Fear. |
|
|
|
tennis tom
USA
4749 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 20:24:16
|
To the newbees here, the problem with today's medical science is that it is crap science. It's about publish or perrish. It's done in the sterile confines of antiseptic labs, behind one-way mirrors.
There is NO debate going on between either the meds or the shrinks. They have their huge vested interests and no one has the balls to rock the boat accept for the Good Doctor and a miniscule handful of doctors he mostly hand trained. These medical professionals gravitated to him because they were in pain or because they came to the conclusion that much of the treatment for chronic pain was not working and was bunk.
Read all about it in his book THE DIVIDED MIND.
Dr. Sarno is shunned and ignored at NYU. He doesn't exist as far as his peers are concerned. He's the 800 lb gorilla. They unconsciously know that if they open the door to discuss TMS, it will open the flood gates and there will have to be a sea-change in medicine and psychology. What will they tell their patients who's expensive sugeries have not helped them, maybe made their pain worse or perhaps killed them.
What will the psychiatrists and psychotherpists tell their regulars, who they have been stringing along for years maybe decades, without helping, sitting there sounding wise, empatheic, like a paid for friend?
If that's your idea of science than maybe you came to the wrong place. This isn't a neat board. The title's of the threads usually have no relationship to what they become...that's the nature of the beast.
An anlogy to the unconscious ocurred to me today while driving the vast openness of Nevada's Big Basin on Route 50. Randolph can probably relate to it. When you drive the same route in reverse, on the way home, it looks completley different. It can be as if you had never been there before.
Our TMS minds are a lot like that. The information goes in and then gets turned around in our unconscious. It is not logical.
One thing I've learned is that I often missed the information in the Good Doctor's books that was the most relevant to me. That's why it's important to read and re-read the books. It's a trick that the little mad scientist we affectionately call the gremlin plays on us. He makes us gloss over the stuff that is the most pertinent to us.
Regards,
tt from Salina, Utah
(had a great petite rib-eye steak and fries for $9.00 at a place called MOM'S. A plaque on the wall said it was voted one of America's Best Places to Eat in a book book titled: EAT YOUR WAY ACROSS AMERICA and my stomach agrees.) |
Edited by - tennis tom on 12/29/2006 17:46:49 |
|
|
|
ndb
209 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 22:16:57
|
On the question of what is science etc... I was just discussing this with someone in the morning. Its understandable why the medical establishment doesn't accept Sarno's theories. But why the same doubts about whether Sarno's methods are scientific from the general populace, when compared to 'scientific research'. In fact not only is current science largely motivated by 'publish or perish' but frankly, as a (mathematical) scientist many of their methods seem laughable to me. They state their conclusions with such confidence..."bacteria in the stomach are the cause of ulcers", "hormone therapy for women is good...no, bad...no, good.." , "treat depression only with drugs to restore the chemical balance of the brain" etc etc. When they have far from considered or ruled out all the possibilities! Years later they find out about side effects they never even considered...forget about getting to the cause of diseases!
To me the methods and conclusions of current medical research are not any more scientific or believable than Sarno's deductions, and Sarno at least makes no claims other than his success with patients and a theory which he feels holds together and explains all his observations. No more is asked from any scientific hypothesis. Until we have the tools for real proof in medicine, why quibble over this? See if his methods work for you. You lose nothing, and in my experience stand to gain a lot.
ndb |
Edited by - ndb on 12/28/2006 22:23:16 |
|
|
|
alexis
USA
596 Posts |
Posted - 12/28/2006 : 22:46:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by ndb
...many of their methods seem laughable to me. They state their conclusions with such confidence..."bacteria in the stomach are the cause of ulcers", "hormone therapy for women is good...no, bad...no, good.." , "treat depression only with drugs to restore the chemical balance of the brain" etc etc. When they have far from considered or ruled out all the possibilities! Years later they find out about side effects they never even considered...forget about getting to the cause of diseases!
It is usually not the original scientific study which makes these simplistic statements, but some much lower level popular media that is repackaging the research for public consumption. One thing I worry about with Sarno is that the base publications are themselves in the form of this simplified summary. This means that here we cannot step up by going to the source. I found Sarno to come off as much more confident in his conclusions than the majority of reseaarch I have read. But this is subjective, and clearly some disagree, and of course, we have no idea what other research we are each reading. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dr. Sarno's primary message
