Cancer of the liver; cancer of the rectum; cancer of the [insert body part], has nothing to do with the actions that psychedelics have on your body.
Psychedelics are for the brain and mind, not the abnormal cells attacking your rectum.
The only mention of cancer in the article is treating cancer related anxiety. Getting high and curing cancer at the same time wasn't part of the research. Mentioning such ridiculous ideas only poisons the discussion, and drags the legitimate scientific effort through the mud of false belief, back down to the bottom of the reputation barrel.
I'm not defending the GP's statement about curing cancer, but could you explain your position that "things that affect the brain/mind" cannot affect "insert body part"?
How do you know that? Are you saying that the brain/mind have no effect on the body?
Please point to the scientific research that states that psychedelics definitely do not affect your rectum. At that point, your statement will be more valuable to me than the GP's. As of now, it's at equal value.
> Please point to the scientific research that states that psychedelics definitely do not affect your rectum.
Proving a negative isn't typically the best scientific approach. It'd be on the person making the dramatic claims to offer evidence. There's a lot of evidence about how cancer cells work and little (if any) gives reason to suspect some sort of conscious connection would affect it.
Though I think there is some data that people are more likely to recover if they feel more confident or at least not hopeless, but can't remember where I read about that. There was also something recently about an unexpected immune 'tube' to the brain or something and I think there's a positive correlation with being happy and getting sick less often. All this is still a pretty far cry from claiming that psychedelics are likely to cure cancer.
Stating that the negative can't be proven either does not make both arguments equivalent.
It's not hard to make a somewhat reasonable hypothesis.
Cancer is not a binary category. In the natural course of a human life it can be observed that some "cancerous" cells cease to exist / be problems, not from some external intervention, but merely through other signals and interactions within the body. Maybe some process detected something was wrong and set in motion another process that corrected it.
What controls these processes? Likely complex electro-chemical reactions that can only occur in certain environments. If a suitable environment does not exist, the reaction does not occur (how can it?).
Now, consider that the human consciousness can be observed to seemingly create complex changes throughout the body, including numerous electro-chemical reactions, and even changes of local environments (e.g. release of neurotransmitters and more general hormones).
If the appropriate environment is created for the appropriate reactions in the appropriate places to "resolve a cancer", then it will happen.
Yes, you can argue about how much fine control a consciousness can have over it's body. You can also argue about what reactions happen in which environments.
>There's a lot of evidence about how cancer cells work and little (if any) gives reason to suspect some sort of conscious connection would affect it.
Such as? You can only find something if you look for it. You would never expect to suspect a consciousness at work if you weren't looking for it.
Stating an unproven negative holds the same value to me as stating an unproven positive. That's a fact and that's exactly what I said.
Stating an unproven negative as if it were a fact is also not the best scientific approach.
(Also, saying something like "the mind has no affect on the body" is a positive statement of fact. Quibbling about the word "no" or "not" is just semantics IMO.)
"Please point to the scientific research that states that psychedelics definitely do not affect your rectum"
Scientific research doesn't work like that. Scientists don't set out to prove that links between arbitrary things don't exist.
Because there's no research that disproves any link between toothpaste and baldness, doesn't mean we can't use common sense based on what we know about toothpaste and baldness to all but rule out any link in the absence of that research. What we do know about toothpaste and baldness, does not point or suggest any link between the two.
Likewise, what we know about psychedelics and cancer of the rectum, is that the two would unlikely be connected. From the extremely small amounts of drugs needed to affect consciousness, to the aggressive disease attacking your cells. Even in a biological sense they are worlds apart.
Finally, the "mind over body" idea is more about our minds over our healthy bodies - keeping things such as blood flow and other systems healthy. Once those cancerous tumours start growing, there's no scientific data or even a reasonable theory to suggest "the mind", be it under the influence of drugs or not, has any fighting ability to repair localised cancerous cells and prevent further spreading.
Thank you for the great explanation of an instance where stating a negative is not useful.
However, in this case, I don't think one can say there is there's no scientific data or even a reasonable theory to suggest that "the mind" has any affect on the healing abilities of our bodies given that the placebo effect is our rule of measure for whether a drug works or not.
Well you did ask "please point to scientific research...", so an explanation was needed for why that wasn't going to happen. Didn't mean to annoy you with that.
Placebos, sure. The thing that bothers me about placebos is the time variable. A course of placebos or drugs is also a course of time. Things heal in time, healing may have happened anyway in that time if nothing was done for those patients. Our immune system is pointed in the healing direction by nature, but significant momentum in that direction is another matter.
My own opinion on mind over body is not one of miraculous healing but of providing good conditions or foundation for healing to happen. I'm not convinced the mind on its own can deal with something like cancer without significant help (proper help, not placebos or psychedelics).
No problem! Not annoyed in the slightest, I enjoy exploring this subject. However, since you mentioned the phrase "miraculous healing" I get the feeling that you're ascribing an opinion to me that I do not have. You probably think most people who talk about the mind/body connection to be miracle-believing nut-bags, but that's not me. To me - a miracle is just a misunderstood event.
Saying that things heal in time/nature is just another way of affirming that "your body indeed has the ability to heal itself". But also consider the fact that placebos statistically quicken healing faster than nothing at all (e.g. just the passing of time). There's just no way that placebos would be used as a reliable control measure without having tested them against the theory that the passage of time is enough. I believe that most clinical trials also include or are compared against groups of people that take no placebo and no drug.
It's also been proven that the emotional pain in the mind can cause physical pain. And it's been proven that depression can cause you to actually get sick. So, I don't think it's a far leap to imagine that the mind can directly and significantly affect things in the opposite direction.
Did you really just say that?
Cancer of the liver; cancer of the rectum; cancer of the [insert body part], has nothing to do with the actions that psychedelics have on your body.
Psychedelics are for the brain and mind, not the abnormal cells attacking your rectum.
The only mention of cancer in the article is treating cancer related anxiety. Getting high and curing cancer at the same time wasn't part of the research. Mentioning such ridiculous ideas only poisons the discussion, and drags the legitimate scientific effort through the mud of false belief, back down to the bottom of the reputation barrel.